Illinois has become the most recent legal battleground on prayer in schools. In October, a state law went into effect mandating a moment of silence in school each day, causing one student to bring suit, saying she attended school to learn, not pray.
On the other hand, there can be even nonreligious benefits to a moment of silence, such as helping students refocus. “My one friend was really angry because he liked having that moment to think about his life. He’s going through a tough time. His parents are getting divorced. His brother’s not very nice to him,†said the student bringing suit. “It’s hard, because I understand he has rights. But so do I.â€
132 Comments
The main problem with moments of silence in the schools is that if they actually got one, the religious types would immediately pronounce it a miracle.
How about moments of science. It’s a school after all, you can have all the silence you want in the library.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_clashing_clergy;_ylt=AgNJ_wht3Q1QPDMlAFyLTmcLewgF Funny, Funny, shit and christians blast muslim factions cause they cant get along
At the School for the Deaf, we always had moments of silence.
Are you kidding me? what the heck. Most kids will be passing notes and giggling at the boy next to them during this time. What a waste.
At least it was uniform and all inclusive. That’s the least I can say. But it aggravates me that they’re trying to put religion back in school any way they can.
Even the athiest prays before a test.
I don’t care if they pray in school, as long as I don’t have it crammed down my throat. The moment of silence is a crock. If you were truly religious every act you did would be a prayer. You don’t need a designated moment of silence to pray, “Thank you God that Billy Bigun walked into a locker”, or “Praise the Lord Sally Rottencrotch got a swirley today”. You know that’s what on the minds of most schoolkids today. Looking at the recent crops of young adults it’s obviously not the 3 Rs.
Hey, did the christian crazies of Kansas move to Illinois?
There is nothing wrong with starting the day with a minute of silence. It is a good thing to use as a point of demarcation between bullcrap and business. And, if you wish, you may pray silently if you wish or you may simply gawk at a girl in your class and think about how hot a date with her would be. This lawsuit has a ZERO chance because the plaintiff cannot prove harm.
“A moment of silence” is just another angle the fanatics are using to institute THEIR version of religon into the classroom.
A student who wants to observe a “a moment of silence” may already do so, just don’t try to impose it on my child.
…………can anyone say “the establishment clause”?
I have never ever prayed before a test and I’m not even a true atheist. I believe in a God.
A moment of silence is not a prayer and not religious intrusion into our secular school system. How much hatred must atheists and secularists feel to condemn SILENCE as religious-based? With the NEA being 95% Democrat and teachers in general being 85% Democrat, our schools are about the most left-leaning places in the world. They already have the power to brainwash every child that is legally forced to attend. Seriously, do you think a minute of silence every day will somehow reduce their power to indoctrinate our kids?? Have no fear, the God-doesn’t-exist message for the rest of the day will prevail with most kids.
This has nothing to do with the NEA or the Democratic Party, nothing.
It has to do with the covert of one religion being shoved down our children’s throats disguised as “a moment of silence”.
Mom_of_5 shows her true colors with her post. If you don’t like community schools, put your “5″ in a private or parochial school.
You do have that chose
……sorry, “choice”.
Need more caffeine.
I see no problem with a moment of silence. As kev notes it can serve to demarcate between the before-school time and time to get to work. And, perhaps it gives everyone a chance to gather their thoughts, take a deep breath, and cool off a bit.
My friend told me that a “moment of silence” occurred right after he told his wife he was going to play golf.
Of course, there was that laser beam, skull melting stare that simultaneously as well. :)
watsa matter popup! forgot to change your nic from last night? :D
You know mom of 5, it’s a sin to lie about stuff (darn pesky religious rules huh). This is SO obviously religiously motivated that it is SO pathetic to even pretend it isn’t.
I guess if the ends justify the means. I think Al Qaida believes that too.
Very true popup!
Chuckle…Objecting to a moment of silence. Wierd. Here are a few suggestions about what you can do to use that time.
Chant mantras in your head, focus, think about the meaning of pie, twiddle your thumbs, think, plan your day, unwind, fantasize… or even pray.
outlander exposes the “moment of silence” for its true intent>>>>>>…………prayer………….
Can’t you just see Apophis throwing an eraser at the head of a student who brought out a Bible?
1. I’d never “throw an eraser” at anyone, including a dangerous christian-taliban fanatic like YOU outlander.
2. I could care less if a student brings out a bible, as long as they have there assigned task completed. I always encourage leisure reading, even if it’s “historical” fiction.
I got a better idea.
How about a moment of screaming?
Or at least a moment or unrestrained noise and activity? Let the kids vent since they don’t get recess anymore.
I imagine any moment of mandated silence in your average classroom will be filled with burps and fart noises. That is what I would do with it when I was a kid.
Ha! You know Apophis, I’m surprised that you would be a critic of the Illinois law. I have teachers in my family. They pray for a moment of silence!
They should ask the Obama about the moment of silence - he is from Illinois.
That is, if the next Democratic Debate doesn’t get soft balled again by CNN or NBC.
There you go again outlander…….it’s all about prayer to you.
…………and you might wonder why I oppose this?
I got a better idea.
How about a moment of screaming?
Posted by: J R
I’ve used that technique before teaching. It was recommended in my Ed classes. Kids were not made to sit ‘quietly’ for 45-95 minutes at a stretch, depending on school and block schedule. Younger kids need more frequent boisterous time.Neighboring teachers were none too pleased with my ‘primeval scream’ technique.
We had prayer in school when I was a kid. News flash! It didn’t kill anybody. We also had the Pledge of Allegiance.
I’m not pushing for prayer in the classroom; that’s the old way back in the old days. But when you consider what schools have become, maybe the “old ways” weren’t such a bad thing. There was a time that when you went to school, you got educated. Today, not so much.
No Outlander. After all, they are in school. It should be, “ … think about the meaning of ?.
Well I attended NorthWest, and the Christians would do all their praying and activities before school, either in the libray, the commons, or outside by the flagpole. I don’t see a reason to have a moment in silence in class, they have plenty of time before school, and during lunch to do their Christian duties.
What are Christian fundamentalists so afraid of, besides God? If God is so great, then nothing else has power over you, not any real power. So, what you’re afraid of must be God. Why are you so afraid of God? Is God not stronger than the forces of evil? Do you feel He’s abandoned you to the forces of evil? Would God do that to you? Has God done that to you?
Do you think a moment of silence will fix that?
In point of fact, Mom_of_5 did put her kids in private school whenever finances allowed. I also continued to pay property taxes, supporting all our secular schools.
I also grew up when public schools allowed prayer, we sang actual *gasp* Christmas carols, we had **gasp** Christmas vacation…and it didn’t damage anyone. Equating a moment of silence with the teacher-led prayers of 40 years ago is simply stupid.
Why are so many in the party of “love, tolerance and diversity” hateful, intolerant and anti-anything that disagrees with their limited world view? Is the secular world view so fragile that it can’t handle one minute of silence every 24 hours?
Sorry mom_of_5…………..being intolerant of intolerant practices doesn’t make for a “limited world view”.
There is no point for your “moment of silence” other than to drag prayer to YOUR god into the public classroom.
As for your whining about paying property taxes…………….deal with it.
Well, of course the primary purpose is the provide studients an opportunity for prayer. What’s wrong with that? As long as it is silent and it is not promoted as prayer time, there is no consititional issue.
Hey Apophis,…
Deal with it.
I will deal with it………..
If it occurs here, I will ignore it just like I ignore anything else that is non-secular in nature.
When I was in school, we had 20 minutes after lunch of sustained silent reading.
THAT was a good idea.
When I was in school we had state-mandated Protestant prayer and King James Bible readings. THAT, IMO, violated the establishment clause.
SSR is a great idea JR, but in this day and age of the technology driven child, it is increasingly more difficult to get them to “read”.
I do, however, support real reading.
Wow! How fearful are those antireligionists! A moment of silence! That is scary! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
Gee guys, give it a break. I don’t think it is necessary, nor is it important. One way or the other. I too remember starting the day with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Did it make a difference? probably not. Did it do harm? Probably not. This is much ado about nothing. The boy in the second row can think about the butt of the girl in the first row if he likes during his moment of silence. Someone else can offer a prayer to whatever God they wish, or no God. Just calm down a little. Geesh. BY the way, I do not support faculty or staff led prayer in schools.
When I was in school, we had 20 minutes after lunch of sustained silent reading.
THAT was a good idea.
Posted by: J R | December 28, 2007 at 10:53 AM
THAT IS A GREAT IDEA!______________________________
When I was in school we had state-mandated Protestant prayer and King James Bible readings. THAT, IMO, violated the establishment clause.
Posted by: Ben | December 28, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I agree whole heartedly
Ben, same experience when I was in school, until the Supreme Court ruling. My dad applauded the ruling, as he felt mandated prayer was violative of the First Amendment.
SSR is a good idea, but it doesn’t seem that it is all that rewarding anymore; I know it was dropped where my wife works, as there was little to no “reading” occurring, although encouraged by the teachers, etc.
I was raised a Presbyterian. Perhaps due to the sect’s Scottish origins, Presbies pray, “…forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” instead of the whole “trespasses” thing.
My first grade teacher put me in detention for distrupting the Lord’s Prayer before classes started.
There was a Jehova’s Witness kid in my third grade class. His parents insisted he not salute the graven image that is the American flag. But, being third-graders, we ridiculed him every morning when he left the classroom and stood in the hall while we parroted the Pledge of Allegience.
I’ve written before in this forum about Americans’ tendency to seek out “other-ness.” “You’re either with us or against us,” said George WMD Bush. But in fact, we can disagree about the degree of problems facing soceity and the means to solve them without being enemies. We can, that is, if we get over our territorial instinct to villify “other-ness.”
Wasn’t Jesus against public prayer? And Forced prayer doesn’t that take away from it having any meaning same with having mandatory pledge I not that old and we started the day with the pledge at least in elementary school, but certain religions are against the pledge mennotite come to mind they think its idolatry, Quakers dont either i beilive and i sure their are others
You got that all wrong MH.
It’s…
“You’rin either with us or agin us.”
Actually, Jesus prayed publiclly. It was not the public part that he objected to, but the tendency for man to glorify himself with his prayers. Hence, his example that is okay to pray publicly, but his admonish to pray in a not so public way. To make sure that your motive is correct when you pray. However, your point is well taken. Forced praying or forced pledging does little but annoy the one forced, if they think of it at all. It certaily has little meaning. However, a forced moment of silence can be of benefit, for all who chose to take it.
I also continued to pay property taxes, supporting all our secular schools.Posted by: Mom_of_5Y’know, that’s sos yez can give the peons a bit o’ readin’ and ritin’ sos dey can run yo’ fac’ries.
I went to parochial (read ‘closed-minded’) school. We just had a Mass in the morning and 1 hour of catechism. Being the only altar boy to serve the 5:30 mass and getting stuck with funerals (not weddings which pay!) I was good for 12 to 15 masses a week. I put in my church time.
We didn’t really have school prayer, per se, but y’know, nobody swings a fox-tailed broom like a nun with the wrath of god on her side.
“But in fact, we can disagree about the degree of problems facing soceity and the means to solve them without being enemies.”
I would hope so, but given the usual state of exchange on this blog, I’m not sure we’re capable of it.
Anyway . . .
This moment of silence is what it is; it’s designed for prayer. It either can be seen as trying to push prayer on the schools, or as an accomodation to people of faith. IIRC, moment of silence for “prayer or meditation” have been upheld by the SCOTUS, while moments of silence specifically for prayer have not. It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, but there ya go. And no, I have little interest in hunting down cites.
However, I strongly suspect that if we were to break school several times a day to accomodate Muslims in their ritual prayers, the same people who are so intolerant of this moment of silence in this case would be all for such an accomodation in the Muslim case. Why is that?
I’m all for a moment of silence when kids can pray.
In fact there should be a call to prayer “ALLAH AHKBAR!” followed by MANDATORY prayer.
Then we could just change the name of public school to “madrassa” and be done with it.
In fact there should be a call to prayer “ALLAH AHKBAR!” followed by MANDATORY prayer.
Then we could just change the name of public school to “madrassa” and be done with it.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | December 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Not much hype here. HHAHAHAHAHA!
GMC, you can put me down as not being tolerant of either. Just how I am.
You do raise an interesting point; for those who feel that mandated prayer in public schools is a good thing, would you be equally in favor of the same if it was mandated Muslim prayer, a Roman Catholic prayer, or a Jewish prayer, rather than a Protestant prayer? To me, consistency would say that those who support the mandated Protestant prayer were would be equally supportive of the Muslim, Roman Catholic or Jewish prayer. I feel that this isn’t what would occur, however. To quote GMC, “Why is that?”
VT -
Point taken. I’d point out, however, that what is being proposed is NOT “mandated prayer.” No one is proposing mandated prayers.
However, there are some elements which seem bent on imposing “mandated no prayers.”
Agree with you on both points, GMC. As you have gathered, it is the “mandated” part that I don’t like, regardless of the position for which the mandate is sought.
…”Y’know, that’s sos yez can give the peons a bit o’ readin’ and ritin’ sos dey can run yo’ fac’ries.”[quote of] ghotiphaze
Being a “peon” myself, I have spent many years impressing upon my kids the need for a good education…and spent many, many hours teaching the reading and arithmetic skills that the secular teachers didn’t bother teaching - during all those years when my peon’s wages wouldn’t cover $2000 a year per child in addition to my property tax.
I’m also wondering where Vaughn got the idea the anyone was supporting mandatory prayer in school? Silence is silence, not prayer. If Christian kids are supposed to maintain their worldview through 7 hours of secular brainwashing every day, surely secular kids can survive one minute of silence in that day.
And for Tom Paine, Jesus not only supported public prayer, He taught His disciples HOW to pray. He also taught **gasp** religious stuff in PUBLIC, right in front of everyone!!
See, “GMC70″ –
Your plaintiff insistance that “…what is being proposed is NOT “mandated prayer,” rings hollow.
In a couple of weeks or a couple of threads the so-called “conservatives” will rant and rail about the inferiority of public education because of mandated courses that disrupt schools’ main mission of teaching the three Rs. “Abstinance” education is most certainly not a mandate from evil liberals; it’s conservatives carving hours of education out of school days for moralistic indoctrination.
A “minute of silence” every day takes 180 minutes — three hours — out of the school year to what end? Forced abstinance education takes 180 hours out of the school year to attempt to counter 10 million years of evolution (oooh!) that’s led adolescent boys to like to kiss adolescent girls.
Teach your theology in church. Teach your theology in the home. But as soon as you expect my tax dollars to educate your kids, expect me to draw the line at forcing your theological biases onto every child.
GMC, VT - good points. It might make sense to have a few breaks during the day for ‘whatever’ just as we do at work. I might just rest my eyes a bit, lust after the girl in the next cube, or pray. No big deal.
I know that in my workplace I have co-workers who have Bibles that they read during breaks. That is and should be their choice.
I think this has become much ado about nothing.
MH -
I understand your position, MH. And part of me agrees with it. As noted above, were we accomodating Muslim prayers, I suspect the usual suspects would not be so protesting. And there seems little doubt that there are some elements who seek not to just remove teaching theology in public schools (something no one is advocating), but to remove religious practice from public life; i.e. mandating “no prayers.”
What is this really about? If I set my child in the corner for 5 minutes for a silent time out. Am I ‘telling’ him to pray - I think not. Why do you protest so much about a minute of silence in a classroom. Each student will handle it as they want. Maybe running the answers to the pop quiz coming up through their heads. Maybe think about the fight they had with their little bro this morning. Maybe thinking of what needed to be done with they leave school this afternoon. Maybe - horror of horrors - pray. Why does this stike terror in the heart of those who have no religion?
We are a Christian nation whether the majority of bloggers here think so or not. The Rasmussen poll out last week said 82% of Americans profess to be Christian. Fact.
If no one prays out loud or urges anyone else to pray outloud. What is the objection?
JMOHO. Question your fear. It is driving you.
There is nothing wrong with moments of silence, why should it be associated with religion?
It has a lot of healthy benefits that teaches patience, self reflection, quiets the body and the mind, lowering the blood pressure.Too many people are always tense which causes hostility or a strained relationship between people or groups, WeBlog is a good example.Take a moment now and silence your mind, relax your thinking and breathe deep, relax and let your tensions melt away and then come back with a clear head.After you have settled down, you should realize that you were thinking inside the box instead of outside of the box.
“GMC70″ –
As long as there are math tests, there will be prayers in school. Such as, “God help me to remember Pythagoras’ Theorem.”No one can “mandate” no prayers. And no should be empowered to force prayer on students.
True story: Several years ago, the priest at Bishop Carrol High School instructed the basketball coach to instruct his players to *not* cross themselves at the free-throw line if their percentage was less than 80%. “It sends the wrong message.”
Okay, Bishop Carrol is a parochial school and can teach whatever silly religious stuff it wants.
But I’m paying for public school education. I’m not all that rich and I haven’t run the numbers but let’s assume I finance a dollar a day for public education; a hundred and eighty dollars a year.
I truly resent that three dollars a year of my tax money is devoted to some sham “moment of silence” designed to promote prayer, rather than to educate the kids who will someday become my doctors or nurses or lawyers or mechanics.
Multiply my three-dollars-a-day times the population of Kansas and we’re talking about something like $10 Million a year to force something like prayer on kids instead of educating them.
Those who are so inclined have plenty of time, off my dime, to practice their religion; at church or at home or communing with nature. Worship whatever and whomever you want, but on your own time.
No matter how sincere and devout the workers at, say, Cessna might be, there’s no way management would pay workers to take off an hour to celebrate Mass in the middle of a work day. How could anyone justify forcing teachers to take time off from teaching to worship whatever “god” is currently in fashion?
The job of secular education is to provide a secular education. If you want your kids to get a religious education, you have your options.
If you want me to subsidize your kids’ education, pardon me if I insist you indoctrinate them to your religious beliefs on your own dime.
It’s not like I’m *mandating* “no prayers.” It’s that I insist your prayers, and your kids’, not suck my tax dollars. Pray all you want, but don’t make me pay for it.
“ksgrm” –
We may be a nation comprised of a so-called “Christian” majority, but we are most certainly not a “Christian nation.”
Most major league baseball players might be “Christian,” but that doesn’t make baseball a “Christian” game.
Ask ‘em and I’ll guarantee you most casino patrons in America would tell you they’re “Christian,” but that doesn’t make gambling a “Christian” enterprise.
The authors of the Constitution of the United States of America specifically wrote there should be no religious test applied to our governmental representatives.
It was important to the Founding Fathers. None of them thought for a moment, for example, that
So what happens if a Student chooses to talk during his moment of silence?
t”ksgrm” –
We may be a nation comprised of a so-called “Christian” majority, but we are most certainly not a “Christian nation.”
Most major league baseball players might be “Christian,” but that doesn’t make baseball a “Christian” game.
Ask ‘em and I’ll guarantee you most casino patrons in America would tell you they’re “Christian,” but that doesn’t make gambling a “Christian” enterprise.
The authors of the Constitution of the United States of America specifically wrote there should be no religious test applied to our governmental representatives.
It was important to the Founding Fathers. None of them thought for a moment, for example, that they’d have to include an article that left-handers had equal rights to righties. For better or for worse, the authors of the original Constitution of the United States chose to count African-Americans as 3/5ths of a human being.
But they were specific in their determination to remove religious beliefs from the operation of constitutional government.
We are no more a “Christian” nation than we are a “Druid” nation. Your religious beliefs are personal and profound and may well determine the way you lead your life. But you’ve got to lead your life without the government of the United States on your side.
Deal with it, “ksgrm.” Convert us. Convince us. Demonstrate how your religious faith makes you superior to the rest of us and lead us to a better life, now and after death.
You just don’t have the power of the government of the United States of America to impose your faith on the rest of us.
That is certain to happen!
Monkeyhawk, the Christian religion is superior because they have the most guns. Problem is Islam has a lot of guns too and these “religions of peace” have displayed their willingness to use them.
“Doug” –
So maybe the question should be “Who Would Jesus Shoot?”
Now if the moment of silence was changed to a moment of Yoga meditation, imagine the stink the tightyrighties would raise.
“But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” -Jesus
Sounds like he’d kill everyone who doesn’t want to be enslaved by his dictatorship. But in all fairness he just orders others to do the killing so he can watch the entertainment.
The only reason for a minute of silence can be prayer. For example:—Is the secular world view so fragile that it can’t handle one minute of silence every 24 hours?Posted by: Mom_of_5 | December 28, 2007 at 10:31 AM
—
If it’s such a small deal, then why do you defend it? Why do we need it? If it’s just one minute a day, then what exactly is its real worth? Why even have it?
ANS: it’s a compromise designed to allow the offspring of the 2x-born to pray without having to support/hear the prayers of Muslims, pagans, or any other non-Christians: stealth Christian prayer in public schools, in other words.
I’m with political_mom: it’s pathetic if yall don’t have the stones to admit it.
And if you do admit it, then take the following into your consideration when/if you try to understand my point of view.
After all, no minority likes to be tyrannized, and polite tyranny is *still* tyranny.—To force anyone to support a cause that person does not believe in, is TYRANNY!Posted by: econ101 | December 28, 2007 at 02:18 AM
Somebody upthread asked those who “fear” this kind of tyranny to examine our “fear.” Well, here it is: because the most vital support of today’s GOP comes from the 2x-born, and because many of these folk refuse to recognize separation of church and state, and because this group has had so much political success recently (here I’m thinking specifically, although not exclusively, of the Texas GOP — Rove and Bush, for example), I fear that laws like these are the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent.”
In other words, there’s worse to come for those of us in the non-Christian minority. Give these people and inch and they’ll want a mile. By the way, I am aware that this conclusion is of the same broad class of conclusions reached by those who feel that Social Security, for example, is the first step down the slippery slope to American communism: both that and my concusion are subject to a “slippery slope” fallacy.
Nevertheless, that’s it in a nutshell. You can tell me to “deal with it,” but if you do I’ll reply “I am, and that’s why I write here as I do.”
Doug and Monkey what you don’t see here is that 1) no one is telling anyone to pray 2)is this the only period of silence in school dailey? 3)your analogy of baseball and casinos doesn’t float because as a country we don’t vote in congressmen and senators to enact laws for the casinos and baseball unless there is corruption.
You are wrong if you think I want to impose my faith on you or anyone else. I simply want to be free to practice my religion without feeling like a second class citizen.
If you are instructed to bow your head or to do anything that would indicate that you are being asked to particiapate in a prayer. Holler as loud as you can NO. That is your right. Just as it is the right of Christian student to say a morning prayer if that is how he chooses to use his minute.
Why do you care so much? I don’t remember you complaining when the University of Minnesota put in prayer station for Muslims.
WWJP
What would Jesus Pack?
Micro Uzi Sub machine gun maybe. Ar10 assault rifle?A .30 cal Browning automatic?
I’m guessing he’d pack the uzi since he’s of Jewish desent.
Ahem: Vaughn, GMC, why no mention of Wallace v. Jaffree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._Jaffree
The problem with “moment of silence” is that’s it’s more “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” legislation. It’s clearly intended for prayer.
Harmless? Well, I dunno–if your child is not assuming the reverent stance (head down, if not hands together), what happens then? It also seems unneccesary–teachers can tell their classes to shut up at any time. Final exams are HOURS of silence.
Assuming no attempt at forced group prayer, then it’s just silly, and pointless.
What exactly is the “clear secular purpose” here?
EXACTLY Rage.
It’s the camels nose under the tent.
People are not PREVENTED from praying in school. As long as it is not disruptive.
What the moment of silence folks are after is getting other people praying.
Rage, no incentive to hunt down the cite for me.
The link in the header discusses the fact that the Illinois governor vetoed the law, which was overridden by the legislature. It will be interesting to see how the federal court handles this, in light of the decision in the cited case, and given the reported title of the law.
And, JR and Rage, my problem with the “mandated” moment of silence; it is an attempt, IMO, to elevate form over substance in a way that the proponents believe will overcome SCOTUS precedent. It is clear to me that the intent of at least some of the legislators was to create a mandated opportunity for prayer, and added the other language to, as I said, get by the existing jurisprudence in the area.
If a student wants to pray silently, go for it; if a student wants to practice yoga, e.g., go for it; do it on their time, not during a “mandated” time.
Heh, yeah, Vaughn, we’re definitely on the same page. Reminds me of the “evolution” of intelligent design–a direct result of Biblical creationism being defeated in Edwards v. Aguillard.
See that’s where I’m at Vaughn.
This is presented as such a minor little “why can’t we have just this?” thing. The subterfuge is transparent though.
No one is kept from praying now. This accomodation is not necessary.
What are Christian fundamentalists so afraid of, besides God? If God is so great, then nothing else has power over you, not any real power. So, what you’re afraid of must be God. Why are you so afraid of God? Is God not stronger than the forces of evil? Do you feel He’s abandoned you to the forces of evil? Would God do that to you? Has God done that to you?
Do you think a moment of silence will fix that?
Posted by: Mod | December 28, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Good question.
What are the Seculars so afraid of ?
JR for a non-professing Christian you certainly have you ear to the ground on this one.
“What the moment of silence folks are after is getting other people praying.
Posted by: J R | December 28, 2007 at 02:39 PM”
I have no desire to get your prayin’. I just don’t want you to tack a Christian label on anything you don’t agree with. A minute of silence is bad because - the teacher needs a moment to gather his/her thoughts, the class is rowdy and needs a silent moment to quiet down, whatever the reason lets blame those durn Christians.
Got you loud and clear.
VT would a court of law allow you to put a label on an action or is how you perceive it irrelevant?
Just wondering?
ksgrm, not clear on your question above. Taking a chance that this is responsive, then as I understand your query, you are wondering what weight a court would give to the title of a statute. It would be a part of the totality of the evidence as to the intent of the legislature in enacting the legislation. The title, in and of itself, would likely not be determinative. However, if there was a legislative history within the journals of the legislature containing statements made by the proponents of the bill which, as in Wallace v. Jaffree, show there was no real secular purpose to the bill, notwithstanding the title given thereto, but rather an attempt to return voluntary prayer to the classroom (from memory as to the testimony of the sponsor of the Alabama legislation at issue in the said case), then any purported secular purpose of the legislation would be ignored.
If this indeed was the purpose of the Illinois legislators in enacting this legislation, I speculate that the sponsors were careful in their recorded public remarks to reflect a secular purpose, or at least a purpose which was not clearly the same as that found to exist in Alabama. I would point out the similarity (to me) in the title of the Alabama statutes found unconstitutional and that enacted in Illinois.
Finally, on a factual basis, I find the action of the Illinois governor vetoing the legislation, which was enacted over his veto, interesting, if indeed there was a clear secular purpose behind the legislation. As I recall from reading the link, the governor had concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, hence his veto.
If this is not responsive to your query, then please rephrase, and I’ll try again.
“What the moment of silence folks are after is getting other people praying.
Posted by: J R | December 28, 2007 at 02:39 PM”
VT what I was referring to was JR’s post above. Is the purpose for the silent minute up for grabs as JR just did. If there is no purpose stated so the seculars get to assign one?
You gave a very long answer to a short question really. I see in the future this same thing happening when Muslims request the right to have times set aside for prayer.Will these same standards exists?
We have already seen this in schools and it is being slipped in as cultural necessities. They skirted the ’silent moment’ argument.
As I have said before I don’t think we need to have a time set aside to pray in public schools. I also don’t think that we need to have numerous laws that discriminate against Christian youth as we have seen already.
BTW, on the University of Minnesota “foot washing station” issue about which you posted earlier. As I posted at the time, I was against that, unless there existed a chapel, or something similar, which could be used by students of other faiths to practice their individual religions. If accommodation had been made for other religions on campus through the existence of nondenominational chapels, as an example, then I had no objections to accommodation of the Muslim students on a constitutional ground.
Looking at the University of Minnesota website earlier (www.umn.edu), there is nothing that indicates any such foot washing stations (or prayer stations, as I recall your reference) had been or would be built. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the action was not still under consideration, but in reviewing the “U’s” (that is how the locals refer to it) recruiting materials for prospective students, there was nothing mentioned therein about these, although much was made and said about various “multicultural” programs.
“A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.
After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.
An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don’t pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)
Some say the arrangement at Carver constitutes special treatment for a specific religion that is not extended to other faiths. Others believe it crosses the line into endorsement of religion.”
This is one example of what I am talking about. This is 15 minutes and as you can see the ‘instructors’ said that students that didn’t want to pray could “(Those who don’t pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)”.
This is the double standard I speak of. Where is the outrage?
Got it, ksgrm. JR is entitled to his opinion thereon, as you are, but neither are evidence one way or the other in a court.
Regarding setting aside times for Muslim students to pray, my answer is the same; I’m against it for the reasons I’ve already posted.
BTW, I’m not seeing any discrimination against “Christian youth”. What I see are attempts to prevent any governmental body mandating any religion on anyone.
I would propose a 10 minute break in the morning, and in the afternoon. Students mat do whatever they wish during their break. Just like much of the real world
or elementary school
VT and Littlejohn I understand what you are saying but as we look at our institutions of learning this isn’t what is happening. Christianity is all bad. Keep it out of our schools. Muslims are all good - we need to understand them so let’s teach it in our schools and universities.
“Ms. Hardman and 3,500 other soon-to-be freshmen at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill have a controversial assignment: to delve into excerpts of a text invoked by the Sept. 11 terrorists. Only two pages into “Approaching the Qur’an,” by Michael Sells, Hardman says the book is “an awful choice.”
This is an exerpt from only one of many articles on what are educators are doing. Many want to ‘enlighten’ their students and in so doing put down Christianity and elevate every other religion.
I could go on but time dictates I run. Good discussion.
It appears from the link below that the program at Carver Elementary will be changed to allow the time for prayer during lunch only. Also appears to apply to all students, regardless of religion.
http://sandi.net/news/2007/religious_observances.html
Littlejohn, the attempt to give a break in San Diego for the Muslim students (which, by the way, was not handled well at all IMHO) is the thing that generated the controversy. I hear what you are saying, and I think it could work, assuming that we are willing to extend the school day 20 minutes (due to the loss of instructional time) to allow for the breaks.
Ksgram-
Often institutes of higher learning have faculty who engage in the flavor of the month philosphy. Some are sincere in wanting their students to understand their fellow human beings. Some just are mindless lemmings, with no soul of thier own. Most just want to show off their intellectualism. A good parent, of any faith, knows how to combat the last two. The first should be embraced. By people of all faiths, and of none.
Exactly, littlejohn.
Damn, “ksgrm” –
When you write, “Christianity is all bad. Keep it out of our schools. Muslims are all good - we need to understand them so let’s teach it in our schools and universities,” do you have any possible perspective of reality?!
No one is imposing Islam upon the American people, but lots of people would impose “Christainity” on the rest of Americans. You know that. You believe that. You have all the answers, thanks to your “Savior,” and you object to anyone whose religious devotion might be different from yours (be it evangelical or traditional protestant, or Roman Catholic, or whatever…).
When religionists such as you are reduced to straw-man arguments, you reveal just how desperate you are.
A non-secular state — as the Constitution of the United States of America is supposed to be — simply doesn’t give dibs to people who believe one way or another as to what “god” wants to happen. “God” is simply not allowed into the argument. It’s not pro-god or anti-god it’s simply “god-ness” isn’t supposed to be a factor.
Believe what you believe. Persuade us. Impress us. Convert us. Attract us to your way of believing. But in the United States of America you have no right whatsoever to impose your religious beliefs on us by law.
As much as it may seem to you, “ksgrm,” no one is imposing non-belief on you. Non-belief simply must be an option to Americans (under the Constitution) because forced-belief is constitutionally not American.
Them’s the breaks of the game.
I am a lapsed agnostic; I’m not sure what it is I don’t believe in. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, that makes me just as good as you, regardless of your devotion to your faith, “ksgrm.”
In America, your “god” and my doubt in “god-ness” simply isn’t an issue. Or shouldn’t be.
When you and others attempt to impose your view of “god-ness” on society, I object.
And you would, too, were you not convinced you represent a majority or some religious “truth.”
Let’s assume a majority of Americans somehow were constituted of “Church of Christ” devotees. In a religious-majority society all of a sudden, no church in America could have an organ, or piano or any musical accompaniment to the singing of hymns.
It’d be pretty strange, don’tcha think? But that’s their sect and that’s the way the Church of Christ chooses to worship.
Some protestant sects celebrate the Last Supper with wine and others insist on grape juice. It that really an issue to impose one or another opinion on other people?
So what’s the difference between Islam and Christianity? I mean, really?
When it involves spirituality and theology, the founding fathers of America specifically said that’s something that government shouldn’t get involved with. It’s there in the Constitution, in black-and-white ink and parchment.
Nobody gets dibs because they think they’ve discovered the one true “God.”
It’s not that we’re against *your* “god” or anybody else’s. It simply isn’t a matter on which to base public policy.
It simply states that public policy should depend on something lesser (or hell, maybe greater?) than theology.
“Christianity is all bad” only relates to those who would impose their particular brand of “Christianity” on others. The mere imposition of anyone’s brand of “Christianity” on public policy is, yes, wrong.
Believe what you want to believe. Convert all your supposed heathens to your theology. Attract us to your way of thinking because you and you alone have found *the* answer.
But in the United States of America, according to the Constitution, you cannot impose your theology on the rest of us.
The difference between Christianity and Islam MonkyHock, is that for making such statements as you did, you would be receiving 100 lashes minimum, by your Muslim masters.
There is no free speech in Islam.
Ah, yes, “Kansas” –
But if I’d said what I said a couple hundred years ago in Salem Massachusetts, I’d be burned at the stake.
By my “christian” masters.
You’ve got nothing to justify your moral superiority over another religious belief. All are just as valid and just as fake as any other.
When you think about it, there’s not a lot of differnce between crucifying the “son of god” and throwing a virgin into a volcano.
And I pretty much guarantee you that if I were invited to preach to a mega-church, the congregation would rise up and nail me to a cross.
I’m a lot more tollerant of religious beliefs. Believe what you want. Live your life accordingly. Just don’t think you have the right to impose your folklore on everyone else.
If your beliefs are legitimate, you should be able to persuade me. If you’ve got a corner on the truth, it’ll probably convert me. But when you tap into the power of government to impose your beliefs, you are absolutely and positively *not* American.
The Constitution of the United States of America specifically states that religion is not one of the factors to be considered when it comes to public policy.
Good, bad, or indifferent… it’s the rules of the game. Whomever you choose to worship as “god,” doesn’t get you extra points.
If Western Civilization is, in fact, superior to Islamic culture, it’s because we of the Judeo-Christian tradition have already lived throught the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem witch hunts. We had a head start on religious prejudice. Perhaps the Muslims are just catching up.
But for you, “Kansas,” to proclaim some sort of superiority over those who don’t believe as you simply doesn’t play out.
I don’t begin to assume I know what “God” thinks. And I reject any human who claims to speak for “God.”
” and you object to anyone whose religious devotion might be different from yours (be it evangelical or traditional protestant, or Roman Catholic, or whatever…).”
“But in the United States of America, according to the Constitution, you cannot impose your theology on the rest of us.”
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 28, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Forgive me Monkey if I don’t paste your whole rant here. I’ll just paste the most ridiculous. Where anywhere have I said my religion is superior to any other? Where have I tried to impose my faith on you or anyone else?
I have stated numerous times that I don’t think ANY prayer should be taught in public schools. Check that out. I have also said public schools are not the place to teach religious doctrine. Check it out.
Now what I do say is that the radicals on this blog who are the vocal majority unlike the state or nation they reside in are scared to death that something - hide your eyes and put your hands over your ears - that is Christian will sneak in the door if people are allowed a minute of silence a day. As JR said it - the old nose under the tent thing.
While you are swatting at the gnat of Chrisitianty the elephant called secular religiosity has taken over the school. They use their platform to try to mold the minds of their charges to tolerate everything non Christian and you set calmly by and say ‘boy we sure told those Christian where to go’ and in your smuggness grow fat and happy.
Someday you will wake up and find that you fought the wrong enemy.
“Secular religiosity”
You don’t know how ridiculous that sounds, do you, ksgrm?
“And I pretty much guarantee you that if I were invited to preach to a mega-church, the congregation would rise up and nail me to a cross.”
Yeah Monkey I can’t remember the last time we nailed a speaker to the cross. Gee the way you talk it must happen - alot. When was the last time you saw this, heard about, read about it - just curious.
And Monkey my faith is my own personal business as Apophis is about talking down his faith in science and Cosmos his faith in GW, if my faith is attacked I will answer. Then and only then will I say anything. My right.
After all my Constitution doesn’t say ‘freedom from religion’ but ‘freedom of religion’ no matter how the left twists it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now tell me where that says a minute of silence isn’t constitutional.
Both Atheism and Secularism have been proven protected religions in U.S. courts.
So don’t try and deny it Capn and MonkeyHawk.
It’s by definition a belief system and one held as guidance in a greater power than yourself.
Therefore, it is a religion.
In the voice of Dr. Evil: “Riiight.”
If Kansas wrote it, you know it can’t be true.
Link it or shut up, KansAss.
Secularism is a “proven religion”? I too would like to see a link.
You took a very short sentiment of mine for an awfully long journey there ksgrm.
I am gonna guess that YOU are just the sort of person that makes me nervous with these little moments of silence.
You cry: “Why do you assume it is Christians! You are Christian bashing. How dare you assume this is some Christian plot!”
Not exact words but the gist of what you have said here.
The answer is easy. I dislike dishonesty.
Who are the folks asking for these moments of silence? They aint Hindus or Buddhists or voodoo priests. No it’s Christians that want them.
Now here comes you all defensive.
Again, I say and accuse you and such folk also of an agenda. You are not after the right of your grandchildren to pray in school.
Tell me that your grandkids are prevented from non-disruptive prayer in school and I’ll be AT that school inviting them to prove it is a disruption.
No, you and the folks who want or see no problem with a moment of silence, you want to get MY kid praying.
Too bad you weren’t paying attention to the thread that discuss this in great detail Capn. It was all spelled out.
Unfortunately, now you have to wave through hundreds of pages of documents.
Justice Black was the gatekeeper to the term in 1961 and of course the famous case in the 7th district court in Illinois that granted an Atheistic group protection under the Constitution as a ‘refined’ group of religion, sans God, but a religion, nonetheless.
Distressed by the Seventh Circuit ruling that atheism is a constitutionally protected religion and rightly viewing it as “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence,” Fahling lamented: “It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited.”
In 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court, in a foonote, described “secular humanism” as a religion, while ruling that the exception in this clause of the Maryland Constitution was unconstitutional: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . . .”http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/050820
====================http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm“The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a ‘way of life,’ even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns,” noted the Seventh Circuit ruling. “A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must be it be a mainstream faith.” Relevant cases include: WISCONSIN v YODER (1972); TORCASO v WATKINS (1961); MALNAK v YOGI (1979) and LINDELL v MCCALLUM (2003).
The Circuit Court judges also noted: “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in MCCREARY COUNTY, KY V ACLU OF KY (2005).” In addition, “the Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.” The TORCASO v WATKINS ruling declared that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Thus, opined the high court, “‘Secular Humanism’ (is) an example of a religion.”
====================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanismCase law
[edit] Torcaso v. Watkins
The phrase “secular humanism” became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” Such footnotes, known as obiter dicta, are personal observations of the judge, and hence are incidental to reaching the opinion…
…reasons stated in court case below…at URL
I just wonder what would happen if we mandated silence 5 times a day?
Actually JR you lack of attention to earlier posts is telling. The muslims want and got 15 minutes in San Diego. You are worried about a minute not devoted to any specific religion and it not used for a specific person.
Now JR who wants to get your kid praying?
There you go Crapn
P-mom I would actually have no problem with 5 minutes of silence a day. It helps to focus the mind. Now if what you are saying is that you want to ring a bell at specific times and have everyone turn in the same direction and pull out their little prayer rugs then I would have a problem. That would indeed be establishing a religion by the person in charge.
I don’t want my kids, grandkids or anyone else’s kids to pray outloud in a classroom no matter what their faith. But for JR , Pmom, Monkey and others to say this is a way for Christians to ‘get their nose under the tent’ is a form of ‘head in the sand’ attitude while a much more insidious attack is being made as has been documented.
Yes well ksgrm.
Muslims are a very small minority in this country.
This is NOT true of Christians. THEY have the numbers and the self proclaimed wisdom and high permission to re write laws as to who can marry who or whether a woman should have control over her own body.
And in THIS story, they are the ones wanting the “moment of silence”.
Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.But then Christians began to challenge the “establishment of religion” which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is “scientific.”
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
As you can see Secular Humanism was established by the supremes to be an established religion.
JR you change your argument so quickly I have trouble keeping up. Now again you are saying it isn’t the moment of silence you mind it is the Christians you think might sneak in a prayer you mind.
I know that in my workplace I have co-workers who have Bibles that they read during breaks.
Posted by: Ben | December 28, 2007 at 12:41 PMWe have a guy where I work that has bible on disc and scriptures written all over his arms. He watches the time clock until the last possible second to clock in THEN goes to the vending machine and takes forever making a selection. He spends more time shuffling his CD to find the right verse. Throws his discard batteries on the floor for others to pick up or slip on. His empty pop and candy wrappers are other people’s problems, too. He makes sure the parts hit the floor and get kicked under the machine because that’d take time from the bible–others can work the parts. He doubles break time and disappears during clean up to warm up his car. I notice this is a trend among christians, as he’s the norm I’ve observed, not an exception. And they’re usually the one’s who’re very vocal about christians being discriminated against.
As I and several people have stated over and over in this thread, there really isn’t any problem with the ‘moment of silence’, it’s just totally unnecesary. Like winking at a blind horse. Does not good; don’t do no harm neither!
I could care less if it’s a way for the hypichristians gain titillation by breaking the rules under the guise of legality. It’s no less than I expect, and it’ll not change.
more “christian” spin ksgrm………..you know as well as I do that this “moment of silence” is a prelude to prayer in the classroom.
Secular humanism is not a “religon”. You desperate taliban will create any straw man out of any twist on a SCOTUS ruling. Sorry, this won’t fly with me or any of the other intelligent progressives here.
Evidently, intelligent (cough) progressives are unable to read.
“The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a ‘way of life,’ even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns,” noted the Seventh Circuit ruling. “A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must be it be a mainstream faith.” Relevant cases include: WISCONSIN v YODER (1972); TORCASO v WATKINS (1961); MALNAK v YOGI (1979) and LINDELL v MCCALLUM (2003).
The Circuit Court judges also noted: “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in MCCREARY COUNTY, KY V ACLU OF KY (2005).” In addition, “the Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.” The TORCASO v WATKINS ruling declared that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Thus, opined the high court, “‘Secular Humanism’ (is) an example of a religion.”
ksgrm
I earlier advocated 20 minutes of sustained silent reading.
I don’t care what kids read during it.
But this dedicated moment of silence is dishonest and not necessary.
I HAVE a kid. I know very well the school environment these days.
If a kid wants to silently pray for 60 seconds or whatever a “moment” is, they already HAVE that. You are trying to fight back against a percieved prejudice that does not exist.
Just as the pendulum swings BACK from the extreme intolerance of all things religious it looks like the Clems, Clementines, Jethroes, and even Maudie Sue have embraced the secular-progressive movement! Effing mind-numbed hicks!
So JR you won’t mind if they read their bible during those 20 minutes? What if they pray for those 20 minutes? What if they hold a book in front of them and pretend to read while really praying?
You are tilting at windmills. Apop has just gone off the deep end. He reads a court ruling and then argues it isn’t real.
What if I tackle a customer in a store I managed because I thought they were going to shoplift. Well it is the intent isn’t it? That what it is all about?
You and pop know that ‘the Christians’ are trying to get prayer back in the schools. No matter how many times they say they aren’t you still think this. When you have something concrete then we have a problem until then stop trying to be the thoughts police.
Secular humanism is not a “religon”. You desperate taliban will create any straw man out of any twist on a SCOTUS ruling. Sorry, this won’t fly with me or any of the other intelligent progressives here.
Posted by: Apophis | December 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Pop I don’t know anything of the sort. For a teacher and a science teacher no less, you aren’t big on facts and truth. Saying it isn’t so doesn’t make it any less real. Religion is taught daily in public school and it isn’t Christianity. See below.
“One final example is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”[6]
Is this the kind of rationale you teach our children? Just say it isn’t real and it will go away. Only in public education but not in real life.
Um ksgrm, perhaps you better re-read what you stated. Justice Black’s opinion doesn’t establish secular humanism as a religion. What his ‘in dicta’ statement said was that non-theistic beliefs are classified as having the same legal protections as religions.
Judging by the fact that you cut and paste something clearly shows you actually never read the court decision and whence the phrase was grabbed from. Next time present the facts rather than distort a Supreme Court ruling.
If something is treated like a religion what is the difference Doug? Secular humanism is a psuedo religion. Treated like a religion legally. The only difference is that in Christianity we see Christ as the head of our church and humanists see themselves as gods.
Who’s kidding who here?
Hey ksgrm?
We have our differences here.
I remember before you stood up for “kansas”.
I’d like you to check out the latest on today’s open thread.
A “pseudo” religion, kinda like how bald is a pseudo hair style, or humans are pseudo monkeys. That doesn’t say much except for a desperation to justify your strawman about secular humanism.
“ksgrm” offers:
“Secular humanism is a psuedo religion.”
And what, in your opinion are *other* “pseudo religions,” “ksgrm?”
And who gave you the right to declare which religions are real or not?
The SCOTUS decisions and opinions you cite implicitly state what you rejected earlier in this thread. Freedom *of* religion most certainly guarantees freedom *from* religion in any aspect of government in the United States of America. You can believe in anything, so far as the Constitution is concerned, but you cannot use the power of government to impose your religious beliefs on others.
When you religionists start claiming that secular humanism is, too, a religion, you demean your own belief system. Somehow you are of so little faith you think only the power of government can sustain your relgion.
Atheists, agnostics, “secular humanists,” have far more faith in their beliefs. They’re willing to believe their beliefs and attract or repel others based on their personal approach to theological questions. They are on the side of the Constitution of the United States of America which specifically outlaws and religious test for elected representatives and specifically gives no theology “dibs” over others… even your so-called “pseudo religion.”
Go ahead and worship your “God.” Believe in your “savior.” Drink the wine and chew the wafer. Believe in Joseph Smith and the Garden of Eden in suburban Kansas City. Or don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America gives you and me and everyone that right with no belief system allowed an advantage.
“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
–Article VI, Constitution of the United States of America
Read it. Learn it. Respect it. Live it.
If I’m suppose to believe that I’m a god and I think rather highly of myself then my house should be considered a church and I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes.
There are two reasons why this would fail. First, secular humanism isn’t a religion, and second, secular humanists don’t think of themselves as gods.
But if we are in the habit of making strawmen today I guess I can say that Christians are cannibals who eat the flesh of humans as a part of their religious practice. They slaughter their victims and bathe in their blood to cleanse themselves of impurities. They can ward off evil by wearing magical amulets in the shape of a letter T and by rattling beads and saying magical chants they can drive away evil spirits.
Catholicism in a nutshell. Secular Humanists, on the other hand, don’t have a dogma or ritualistic practices much less any gods to worship or after life to achieve. Kinda what you expect in a non-religion.
Sigh. . . not sure if Judge W. Brevard Hand invented this crap, but he sure gave it mileage–at least until the Supreme Court wisely shut him down.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDC1730F930A15753C1A961948260
The bottom line is that some archconservative Christians want us to believe that non-religion = religion. One might think that’s logically equivalent to 0 = 1 but it’s worse: it’s like saying Ø (the null set) = 1.
In order to accomplish this feat of idiocy, one must conclude that non-religion (the secular) = secular humanism = atheism. By the same type of logic, one could conclude, e.g., that mathematics = physics = Satanism. This is acheived by taking a neutral word, “secular” (which simply means “things not regarded as religious or spiritual”) and falsely imputing some type of toward inherent metaphysical stance to it.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
“Secular humanists” are humanists who have a nonreligious ethical system.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=secular%20humanism
But what is secular? Plumbing (despite the “snake”). Physics. Accounting. Jogging. Hopscotch.
None of the precedents cited have stated that the lack of religion is itself an exercise of religion. To my knowledge, not since W. Brevard Hand in the 80s has a federal judge declared that Ø = 1.
P.S. By the way, regarding the religion freedom of atheists (an irrelevant issue, but since you brought it up. . .), they’re protected either way. If atheism is a religion, then their right to practice their religion is protected. If it’s NOT, then they’re right NOT to believe is protected. Duh.
Because, you see,you cannot have freedom of religion of without freedom FROM religion. A government that can dictate ITS religion to you will have little difficulty using the same power to dispense with your pesky little blasphemous religion. The Founders, in fact, were MORE concerned with freedom FROM religion, because when government and religion combine, history shows that BAD things happen.
Its seems to me some people equate power with freedom, but they ain’t exactly the same thing. And it’s not YOUR power, folks, it’s the STATE’s. You might be one election to handing it to someone else.
And don’t be too surprised when the powers you willingly cede to the government are used against you.
“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
–Article VI, Constitution of the United States of America
Read it. Learn it. Respect it. Live it.
Posted by: Tom | December 29, 2007 at 01:29 AM
Interesting concept.
Except for that fact that Libs and the MSM use religion, especially Christianity to stir up public hate of any candidate that has mentioned a faith in passing.
Hypocrites.
Hey ksgrm?
We have our differences here.
I remember before you stood up for “kansas”.
I’d like you to check out the latest on today’s open thread.
Posted by: J R | December 29, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Hey J R?
Don’t go acting all innocent.
You use personal information to extort and blackmail people who