I don't see why my tax dollars should be tied to your religion or anyone's religion. If kids want to pray that's fine....but I should not have to sit there in silence and wait for you to finish your prayer when I am there to be educated. That does infringe upon my time. The 10 commandments should not be displayed in a courthouse - the law has nothing to do with Christianity - I am not living under Christian law. It does not swing both way. It is not a matter of atheists limiting people of faith, but of Atheists desiring to live free of Christian rule. Now, I am less militant about it - a Nativity scene means nothing to me, but does it need to be on public land? Really?
Nothing wrong with you saying God doesn't exist, but you have tried to be condescending to those who believe God does exist. Thereby, you have implied that you think they are stupid to believe in God. Your behavior on this thread is contradictory.
Those legal challenges from which the consequences you referred to arose from were initially made by people from different religions, namely the Jewish. As much as it's fitting to transpose the argument to the present-day matter of atheist vs believer, the government is right not to endorse one religion/sect/denomination over another. That pattern of behavior has had several poor reflections in our nations history beyond even it's founding and birth.
If it wasn't for Sweet Lou I would say a gnostic atheist is a myth. Before this thread I don't remember meeting one in real life or even seeing one online. And so we have an absolutely pointless conversation between someone arguing an indefensible position (you can't prove a negative) and someone who fails to understand the concept of burden of proof and has altogether just "gone nuclear", as people tend to do when arguing for something that is not supported by evidence -- make the completely trivial and pointless claim that nothing can be known with 100% certainty, therefore everything must be "faith". El oh el. At least I got some entertainment from this thread from claims like "100% of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled". By the way, cml750, you can keep me out of your prayers. Or, if you must, pray that I go to hell.
Ah, I see, you're totally cool with someone praying just not in school. Sorry man, that one doesn't wash. You just restated your support for the infringement of those students' 1st Amendment rights. That's right, you aren't living under Christian law (whatever that is). Public display of the 10 Commandments is not a law, however. It has no bearing on policy or legal interpretation - it's just something that's hanging on the wall. You just can't stand the sight of it, and so wish to remove it. It sure does. Your inability to see that makes me want to go back to that "E" word I said I'd stop using... You do live free of Christina rule. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. If you go to court over anything you will be judged based upon the federal, state, and municipal statutes on the books, not by the 10 Commandments. The whole "living under Christian rule" thing is just an excuse to push the boundaries and remove all religious expression from public life. That was never the intent of the 1st Amendment. My goodness, you're less militant, but don't want the nativity on public land? If it means nothing to you then why question it?
I completely agree that the govt should not endorse any religion over another. It shouldn't restrict the practice of one either. Allowing kids to pray in school - to whatever God they see fit - is not endorsement, it is simply making allowance for freedom of religious expression. A placard on the wall with the 10 Commandments is not an endorsement; many of our laws have their roots in some of those Commandments. A nativity scene at Christmas is not an endorsement; what do you think Christmas is, anyway? No one is trying to convince you of anything, it's like pumpkins at Halloween. When we find instances of government [pi][actually[/i] endorsing a religion or attempting to pass legislation that would actually force you to live under "Christian law" (again, whatever that is), let me know and I will join you in opposing it. But these examples don't qualify.
Of course I have. Have you ever heard of the Free Exercise clause? It immediately follows the Establishment clause, in the very same sentence.
Just want to point out that this statement is why there is a problem. You say this, but most wouldn't. If they put a Quran, or some other Muslim symbol up, people would go nuts. Remember all the outrage when an elected official was sworn in on the Quran? I'm in your boat. I'm fine with any display, none of them bother me and I don't get offended. However, most Christians in this country are fine with Christian displays but not anything else.
So then what's the problem? No one's saying Christians can't pray privately on school grounds or think Christian thoughts; it's only when the prayer is connected to the school that it becomes a problem because it violates the establishment clause. Furthermore, private parties can restrict religious practices as much as they want, school related or not. I suppose that insofar as that part of being a Christian is spreading the message, sometimes forcefully, then maybe one could say that abolishing school-related religious activities is abridging religious freedom...but none of the first amendment rights have ever been absolute in such a manner.
Not at all, someone keeps asking me I can't be certain of what I think and then telling me I am like an extremist I have a right to defend myself. Many people I care about are deeply religious - very intelligent people - including my parents. They know I am an atheist and never tell me I am an extremist or that I am wrong. It's simple mutual respect. And I don't tell them they are wasting their time because I don't think they are. Does this make sense? I am not being condescending, but I might have admittingly gotten frustrated with someone condescending to me and gotten a bit testy.
He can go pray whereever he wants on his own time. I am not stopping him. Why not let him show up to school early so he can pray? Why does he have to do it during class time when other students have to watch? That makes no sense. Why not have a prayer time at the DMV? What if quotes from the Vedas was put into a court room, people would go nuts! Why is it ok to have one religion and not another???? The only elitist is you my friend. Telling others what they have to tolerate. Separation of Church and State - wonder why that was included in the constitution? Because Public land should be used for everyone and not endorse one religion over another.
I am not talking about private parties. A school is not a private entity, a courthouse is not a private entity. And in many schools in many states students are not allowed public prayer on school grounds. Please, Christianity has moved on from that. The message is one of choice, n ever forcefully imposed. Modern Christianity doesn't play that game anymore, that's pretty much reserved for atheism (see Soviet Union, China, etc) and Islam nowadays. True, they are not absolute. But the spirit of the First Amendment has always been intended to allow for more religious freedom, not less. Remember who the first Europeans coming here were, and why they were fleeing the old country. Religious freedom, and freedom of religious expression, has always been one of the cornerstones of this nation's founding. When in doubt you should err on the side of freedom, not restriction.
You mean wherever he wants and you don't have to see it, right? Why can he not use his moment of silence to do whatever he wants? Ah, there it is. It's like a cross with a vampire, the mere sight of it disgusts you. And why not? Allow each person some time to devote to their chosen faith however they see fit. Atheists can keep working or play a video game, or whatever. Sorry, when did I say it wasn't OK to have another? All I want is for oiur 1st Amendment rights to be respected, and that means government doesn't restrict religious expression - regardless of what that religion is. No, an elitist tells others what they can and cannot do because he feels he knows better than they what is good for them. Which is exactly what you are trying to do. I want freedom. You want restriction and control. As it always is with "liberals", which is why I think that term is so inappropriate for what you actually are. Oh for the love of God, would you PLEASE go back and re-read the Constitution? You just told me that you've either never actually read it or that you have forgotten it to such an extent that you are simply putting things in there that are not there. It says NOTHING about separation of Church and state. That is a myth easily blown apart by a simple reading of the document. 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. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... You focus entirely upon the first clause and completely ignore the second one. Jefferson coined the term Separation of Church and State in a famous letter, and the term has been used and abused for centuries. Why don't you read the entire letter and see if you can figure out what his intention was? http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html Note the word "voluntary". It's important. Which I have already agreed with. A nativity scene is not an endorsement, and neither is a placard on the wall. Seriously, it's a vampire and cross thing with you, you just can't stand the sight of it. Your own intolerance leads you to restrict the rights of others, and you don't even see it.
It is not militant atheists who are fighting to keep public property free of religious dogma, it's militant Christians who are fighting to get their dogma in as many public places as possible. It is the duty of all freedom loving Americans to stand up to the extremist fringe.
Why focus on the lesser point and not the more important point about the establishment clause and that individual students have the freedom to do whatever religious activity they want so long as it is not intricately tied to the school's image. I don't see any public school kids being forced to adopt a system of belief they don't believe in; so tell me how exactly has their freedom of religion been violated? Precisely because they are a public arm of the government, there's only two ways that schools can have things like school sanctioned prayer without violating the establishment clause: (a) not associate any religion with school activities or (b) give the school imprimatur to any and all religions that want it. Which would you rather have? I wonder how you would react if schools started forcing kids to pray 5 times a day in the direction of Mecca or if a Muslim judge wanted to put up some Quran scriptures in his courthouse?
Can you point us to any source that confirms this? It would be a violation of free speech, let alone religion. As far as I know, no school prevents anyone from praying on their own time, publicly or not. The only limitations are that the schools don't endorse it (ie, providing prayer time or leading prayer) or allow it in school sanctioned events (graduation speeches, etc). But if a student wants to stand up at lunch time and start praying in front of the entire cafeteria, there isn't any restriction on that to my knowledge, anywhere.
For starters, one clause is not "more important" than the other, they are supposed to be complementary. I agree that the school should not be tied to any religious activity, but it also should not restrict or hinder the practice of it simply because it takes place on their grounds. The Establishment clause prohibits the school (or other govt entity) from establishing any religion i.e., sponsoring, endorsing, or forcing anyone to participate in religious activity), and the Free Exercise clause prohibits the school (or any other govt entity) from restricting students from participating in or expressing religious activity. When a school prohibits students from praying or other wise engaging in religious activity that is not specifically sponsored by the school they are violating those students' rights under the Free Exercise clause. Yes, that would violate the Establishment clause, and No, I am not talking about school sanctioned prayer. I am completely OK with a quiet period that students may use as they see fit. It's pretty hard to argue against that. Problems tend to arise when students try and do things like pray together before a game or something. There are numerous stories about schools - even in Texas - freaking out about such events and shutting them down. That is absurd.
And why shouldn't the school be able to allow it at a school sanctioned event? I gave the example of prayer before a game. As long as A) it is not a school official leading the activity, and B) no one is forced to participate, why stop it? It is for the same reason that people like Sweet Lou cannot stand to see someone in prayer. It's vampires and crosses.
