Atheist student threatened & disowned for protesting prayer

dom · **Posted:** Tue May 31, 2011 2:37 am

This is a symptom, a symptom of the disease that has turned the US into a backward nation; with its children scoring among the worst in math and science.

This is why creation will be taught in schools and the great nation will become the one that once was.

The argument in support of the prayer is almost always one of tolerance and respect. Yet if you replace the Christian prayer with a Muslim prayer, there would be outrage and cries for the separation of church and state.

Religion needs to be confined to the places of worship and the private homes of the religious.

Barotix · **Joined:** Jul 2007 **Posts:** 9250 **Location:** Sand

They should have had a "moment of silence" instead.

_Equal_ · **Posted:** Tue May 31, 2011 7:08 pm

I'll pray for the poor atheist.

/irony

Heh, just watching humanity sometimes makes me laugh. And then cry. Jesus preached tolerance, but not for every sin.

That kind of Christianity in that town basically resembles the "muslim terrorists" as they can't tolerate our way of life, eh?

Sad for both sides. But yeah, if no Muslim prayer in schools, then get rid of ALL prayer - as it seems was already decided.

Gaigemasta · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 4474 **Location:**

dom wrote:

This is a symptom, a symptom of the disease that has turned the US into a backward nation; with its children scoring among the worst in math and science.

This is why creation will be taught in schools and the great nation will become the one that once was.

The argument in support of the prayer is almost always one of tolerance and respect. Yet if you replace the Christian prayer with a Muslim prayer, there would be outrage and cries for the separation of church and state.

Religion needs to be confined to the places of worship and the private homes of the religious.

Though from Dom and a Canadian

I do agree with this

the.unseen. · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

I think the Pledge of Allegiance is just as dumb as having prayers in schools.

This video pretty much sums up why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I

dom · **Posted:** Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:11 am

relevant to my post

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

strangelove wrote:

I never denied that they're based on religious grounds, simply argued that the holidays have become so out of touch with their faith-based roots that they're no longer viewed as orthodox celebrations for the religious. I'm not sure how many more ways I'll have to spoon-feed you that to drive the point home.

Here, educate yourself a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian

The December 25th celebration is symbolic, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

I will not justify or in any way rationalize his decision to pursue this issue because I am not him, and therefore it's impossible for me to relay his personal feelings to you. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Find his contact details and ask him yourself why he didn't pursue more pressing issues if that helps you sleep at night.

You mean you may not view them as orthodox celebrations. To a point thats true, but then again, you can also say the same for the people attending the prayer, that they were "cultural christians" as nowadays when people say "praying" they might mean it in a, you know, 'cultural christian' way? :sohappy:

Again December 25th may or may not be wrong, its seen as the birth date of Christ and celebrated as the birth date of Christ, and it was made a federal holiday because it is (or was seen as) the birthdate of Christ, and the national christmas tree is there on December 25th cause it is seen as a celebration of the birth date of Christ.

The part about other cases of religion in government was when you/someone said the person (Fowler) hadnt overreacted, because he was "upholding" the law. If a traditional prayer at a graduation in some school in the US can lead to a "slippery slope", surely all these things that are so present in government, could, ya know, do that too?
You see it as someone trying to "uphold the law" (with some obvious bias), i see it as someone overreacting/attention whoring to a traditional thing.
IMO he should have suggested a nonsectarian prayer/moment of silence thing instead of going all "ill call teh ACLU peoplezz!" just a few days before the graduation.

the.unseen. · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

dom wrote:

relevant to my post

That has nothing to do with religion the cousin marriage issue because what I can see is Massachusetts allows both gays and cousins to marry. Now Massachusetts if you know is one of the most liberal, educated and probably one of the least religious state in America. Now I am not saying that religion isn't the main factors in anti-homosexual ideals in America, but it isn't the cause of allowing cousin related marriage. And to be honest... who gives a **** if cousins want to get married? Sure it might be gross, but the idea that they will have mutant inbred children is beyond idiotic as it's well known that mutation in inbred usually doesn't happen after many generations, and doesn't usually happen when it's with cousins. They have as much of rights to get married as anyone, as do homosexuals.

dom · **Posted:** Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:54 am

the.unseen. wrote:

dom wrote:

relevant to my post

That has nothing to do with religion the cousin marriage issue because what I can see is Massachusetts allows both gays and cousins to marry. Now Massachusetts if you know is one of the most liberal, educated and probably one of the least religious state in America. Now I am not saying that religion isn't the main factors in anti-homosexual ideals in America, but it isn't the cause of allowing cousin related marriage. And to be honest... who gives a **** if cousins want to get married? Sure it might be gross, but the idea that they will have mutant inbred children is beyond idiotic as it's well known that mutation in inbred usually doesn't happen after many generations, and doesn't usually happen when it's with cousins. They have as much of rights to get married as anyone, as do homosexuals.

Quote:

This is a symptom, a symptom of the disease that has turned the US into a backward nation

I don't think you're getting the point. You sound upset and maybe even defensive. I couldn't care less about cousins getting married and I am not focused on the role of religion in gay marriage.

The point is that the US is on its way to becoming a backward nation. The force behind religious fundamentalism, and that which has rooted itself in mainstream American culture, will have an irreversible impact on the children and the future of the country.

I could bring up the metric system or universal health care as additional "symptoms" but I think the point has been made.

There is a hidden force or attitude in the American culture that is making its citizens destroy themselves and their country. The prayer at the graduation may appear harmless, but it figures much more than that.

the.unseen. · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

dom wrote:

the.unseen. wrote:

dom wrote:

relevant to my post

That has nothing to do with religion the cousin marriage issue because what I can see is Massachusetts allows both gays and cousins to marry. Now Massachusetts if you know is one of the most liberal, educated and probably one of the least religious state in America. Now I am not saying that religion isn't the main factors in anti-homosexual ideals in America, but it isn't the cause of allowing cousin related marriage. And to be honest... who gives a **** if cousins want to get married? Sure it might be gross, but the idea that they will have mutant inbred children is beyond idiotic as it's well known that mutation in inbred usually doesn't happen after many generations, and doesn't usually happen when it's with cousins. They have as much of rights to get married as anyone, as do homosexuals.

Quote:

This is a symptom, a symptom of the disease that has turned the US into a backward nation

I don't think you're getting the point. You sound upset and maybe even defensive. I couldn't care less about cousins getting married and I am not focused on the role of religion in gay marriage.

The point is that the US is on its way to becoming a backward nation. The force behind religious fundamentalism, and that which has rooted itself in mainstream American culture, will have an irreversible impact on the children and the future of the country.

I could bring up the metric system or universal health care as additional "symptoms" but I think the point has been made.

There is a hidden force or attitude in the American culture that is making its citizens destroy themselves and their country. The prayer at the graduation may appear harmless, but it figures much more than that.

I honestly think you come up as a defensive atheist who feels everything wrong with society has to do with religion. I went to a Catholic school (while it was in Canada) and I honestly never had to put of with religious bullshit and could careless about the fact we had to pray. Matter of fact I would say over half the school could have given two shit whether they had prayers or not. I find Atheists get just as butt hurt as Religious people when it comes to this stuff, and if you don't want to pray, don't pray, but they always seem to have to come up with reasons to bitch just like religious people. If religion had such an impact within America, I can tell you right now, people like Obama would not be President, but someone along the lines Rick Santorum (whom is a republican tea partier, who believe Intelligent design should be mandatory to learn in all schools) but until then your idea that religious fundamentalism is so prevalent in America has no substance. While there is a bunch of dumbass religious people, they in reality are just very loud minority (like atheists) and are located within a main area of America which is where this did happen.

By the way who gives a **** if they use the metric system? That's like shitting on places like England for driving on the different side of the road or Australia for the toilets flushing counter clockwise and calling them both backwards. As far as the idea of Universal healthcare that has nothing to do with anything with this topic and religion, it has to do with dumbass national/political values instilled by people and by huge corporations buttfucking with politicians. If anything Americans are becoming less backwards, as shown in the Wisconsin protests where people from all over the state come together and fought their corrupt government (thanks to the koch brothers (has nothing to do again like these other things you brought up with religion). Like I put in my post before, the pledge of allegiance is probably more harmful than prayers to the youth, and sadly they do it at many elementary schools here as well, where I and many others had to do the Pledge of Allegiance to the Canadian Flag (as you might have as well) which is just as if not worse then praying.

Honestly I find a lot of atheist as annoying as many religious fundamentalists.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Quote:

You mean you may not view them as orthodox celebrations. To a point thats true, but then again, you can also say the same for the people attending the prayer, that they were "cultural christians" as nowadays when people say "praying" they might mean it in a, you know, 'cultural christian' way? :sohappy:

Again December 25th may or may not be wrong, its seen as the birth date of Christ and celebrated as the birth date of Christ, and it was made a federal holiday because it is (or was seen as) the birthdate of Christ, and the national christmas tree is there on December 25th cause it is seen as a celebration of the birth date of Christ.

The part about other cases of religion in government was when you/someone said the person (Fowler) hadnt overreacted, because he was "upholding" the law. If a traditional prayer at a graduation in some school in the US can lead to a "slippery slope", surely all these things that are so present in government, could, ya know, do that too?
You see it as someone trying to "uphold the law" (with some obvious bias), i see it as someone overreacting/attention whoring to a traditional thing.
IMO he should have suggested a nonsectarian prayer/moment of silence thing instead of going all "ill call teh ACLU peoplezz!" just a few days before the graduation.

You seem to have a, you know, selective-reading problem. A consensus was reached by both parties initially that there was going to be a moment of silence instead of prayer for the graduation. However, during that moment of silence, the girl speaking interrupted it to say the Christian prayer. School officials also had knowledge this was going to take place.

Before I waste my any more of my time re-writing everything I said for the third time about these petty issues, read about the Lemon Test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Also, re-read the Cultural Christian Wiki entry, because you seem to have missed the whole point of that.

Again, what exactly are you asking me? Are you asking me if he should have not felt offended? If he should have pursued other cases? While you've made it perfectly clear that assumption and baseless speculation are your basis for information, it is not mine. I said it wasn't an overreaction because the student filed formal complaints with the school board first, which were ignored. Maybe if your solution was to continue sitting on your hands, then I see how this could have gone too far from step one. He personally felt his rights were being infringed upon and I support his decision to take legal action, and that's where my support ends. The Westboro Baptist Church was sued a few weeks ago and I equally supported their First Amendment rights even though I categorically disagree with their message. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not is irrelevant, and you are free to make your own assertion of the event as you have already.

@the.unseen.

I'm so tempted to steal you from dom. ABSTINENCE!

EvGa · **Joined:** Apr 2008 **Posts:** 2612 **Location:** Texas

the.unseen; you didn't "give a shit" about the prayer because it was directed at your god. Had you been required to sit through the prayer/service of several other religions you would have a different tune. Remember, we must be tolerant of ALLLL people's fantasies!

But, this isn't about how much you "give a shit" or don't "give a shit". It's about the separation of church and state. It's simple really. Really, really simple.

the.unseen. · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

EvGa wrote:

the.unseen; you didn't "give a shit" about the prayer because it was directed at your god. Had you been required to sit through the prayer/service of several other religions you would have a different tune. Remember, we must be tolerant of ALLLL people's fantasies!

But, this isn't about how much you "give a shit" or don't "give a shit". It's about the separation of church and state. It's simple really. Really, really simple.

I have no god I am Agnostic and have no idea if any god exists or not and I most certainly don't pray to one, but I don't go bitching at people because they want to pray, so be it. If this kid want the separation of church and state then don't go and be a bitch and make a commotion while other people are graduating, you do it through a proper way which would be go to the state and file a complaint but for **** sakes be civil about it or you're no better then the people crying about non-religious people.

If anything the separation of church and state is one of the least concerning thing in American, I find stuff like these far worse then the battle of religion (because as far as it goes as long as dumbasses don't elect someone like santorum in which case I will agree America is becoming backwards then issues like conflict of interest are far worse).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/3 ... e-Care-Act
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... ons_h.html

Oh and on the subject of America becoming backwards Dom and the states allowing for gay marriage and civil unions... Illinois just allowed for civil unions between same sex. Far from becoming backwards if you ask me.

http://www.suntimes.com/5703018-417/civ ... inois.html

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

Azilius wrote:

Actually because the dictionary says so..

Pray:
Address a solemn request or expression of thanks to a deity or other object of worship.

It's in most used form, pray refers to praying to a deity or God or a big rock or maybe your nightstand. Could mean you're praying to your phone. Doesn't really matter. No where did I say a witch or a wizard or a turtle couldn't pray to whatever they wanted to. Nowhere did I mention God. I simply said, an atheist can not, in any way shape or form, pray. Otherwise...they are not atheists.

Atheism is not only the absence of belief in God, but all Gods, deities, and so forth. Hence why an atheist cannot pray.

So kindly take note of my earlier advice...

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings(IE God)
Pray: to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness. (IE cheater wife prays to husband for forgiveness)

I think people forget that so many things in the dictionary have more than one meaning or definition that isn't always in there hard edition Websters..
I think you should take your own advice.

BTW. Atheists that have ever said "God Damn it" or "Go to hell" or other similar phrases are fucking hypocrites. By your definition anyways. And I don't know one person that hasn't said either of those..

Here's one instance of an Atheist praying.

Spoiler!

That's so wrong of him right?^

And I especially lulled at Yahoo answers "Can an Atheist Pray to God"

Quote:

Yes. I went into a restaurant
and asked if they served crabs,
They said yes, we serve anyone. <}:-})

Oh metaphors.

People are People. I don't see why everyone has to constantly draw a line between Atheist and those that Believe. If an Atheist doesn't believe in anything then I don't see why it matters what others do. The OP Story involves an Atheist trying to stop prayer for his personal reasons which I see as Wrong. However the school is trying o force Prayer on people so that I also see as Wrong. This story has no silver Lining. It's Douches vs a Douche. A person with upstanding morals and ethics understands the need for respect and demonstrates when it comes to people personal beliefs or disbelief and doesn't try to change them. The argument is useless because ultimately it's that persons choice what to believe.
I have no problem being friends with or simply respecting an Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, or whatever Religion as long as I'm shown the same. People are simply People and need to learn to understand each other.

Burningwolf · **Joined:** Jun 2007 **Posts:** 2583 **Location:** :|

Quote:

It's in most used form, pray refers to praying to a deity or God or a big rock or maybe your nightstand.

Someone completely ignored this...

Quote:

A person with upstanding morals and ethics understands the need for respect and demonstrates when it comes to people personal beliefs or disbelief and doesn't try to change them. The argument is useless because ultimately it's that persons choice what to believe.

I'm willing to say that morals and ethics is subjective...
I believe that kid took the right approach.

If a person is about to jump of a bridge, would you respect his decision or would you try to save him?
That is how I feel about religion...
It is a moral suicide...

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Blackdragon6 wrote:

Azilius wrote:

Actually because the dictionary says so..

Pray:
Address a solemn request or expression of thanks to a deity or other object of worship.

It's in most used form, pray refers to praying to a deity or God or a big rock or maybe your nightstand. Could mean you're praying to your phone. Doesn't really matter. No where did I say a witch or a wizard or a turtle couldn't pray to whatever they wanted to. Nowhere did I mention God. I simply said, an atheist can not, in any way shape or form, pray. Otherwise...they are not atheists.

Atheism is not only the absence of belief in God, but all Gods, deities, and so forth. Hence why an atheist cannot pray.

So kindly take note of my earlier advice...

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings(IE God)
Pray: to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness. (IE cheater wife prays to husband for forgiveness)

I think people forget that so many things in the dictionary have more than one meaning or definition that isn't always in there hard edition Websters..
I think you should take your own advice.

BTW. Atheists that have ever said "God Damn it" or "Go to hell" or other similar phrases are fucking hypocrites. By your definition anyways. And I don't know one person that hasn't said either of those..

Here's one instance of an Atheist praying.

Spoiler!

That's so wrong of him right?^

And I especially lulled at Yahoo answers "Can an Atheist Pray to God"

Quote:

Yes. I went into a restaurant
and asked if they served crabs,
They said yes, we serve anyone. <}:-})

Oh metaphors.

Sure we can argue that you can also use pray in a different context, but that's not the context we're all referring to. You quoted some story where a man prays in the context we've been referring to. The dictionary lists different definitions, it's up to you to relate the context to the proper definition. You haven't.

the.unseen. · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

Burningwolf wrote:

If a person is about to jump of a bridge, would you respect his decision or would you try to save him?
That is how I feel about religion...
It is a moral suicide...

So who do you find more moral? Buddhist of Tibet (Whom are religious) or the government of the PRC (whom are known as an anti-religious government)? I mean the conversation can go both ways if you want it to.

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

Azilius wrote:

Sure we can argue that you can also use pray in a different context, but that's not the context we're all referring to. You quoted some story where a man prays in the context we've been referring to. The dictionary lists different definitions, it's up to you to relate the context to the proper definition. You haven't.

Point^
It's all about the Context and yet I see people posting as "It's absolute, an atheist cannot and will not pray" That is all I was trying to say. This Kid shouldn't be forced to Pray if he doesn't want to. He could have Chosen to out of respect, but the school would still be douche bags for trying to subjugate kids to that without a Unanimous decision from everyone that would be involved in the prayer. Atheist can pray. That possibility is not non-existent.

Burningwolf wrote:

Quote:

It's in most used form, pray refers to praying to a deity or God or a big rock or maybe your nightstand.

Someone completely ignored this...

Quote:

A person with upstanding morals and ethics understands the need for respect and demonstrates when it comes to people personal beliefs or disbelief and doesn't try to change them. The argument is useless because ultimately it's that persons choice what to believe.

I'm willing to say that morals and ethics is subjective...
I believe that kid took the right approach.

If a person is about to jump of a bridge, would you respect his decision or would you try to save him?
That is how I feel about religion...
It is a moral suicide...

Morals and Ethics could be subjective in some Cases, but most commonly an Atheist and Believer knows right from wrong, and chooses which to do. Him/Her knowing Right from Wrong Represents his Ethics. Him/Her Choosing to do Right or Wrong Represents his Morals. That is how I judge people. Not by what they believe in or don't believe in.

Hypothetically speaking, you could attempt to grab him from the Bridge, but if he truly wanted to jump, he would do it before you could get close enough to stop him. People have free will. You can try to convince them with words and maybe a little force, but if they truly believe, they won't be stopped. Realistically speaking. I would try to save him. Who wouldn't.

However your Metaphor Comparing Religion to Suicide could be twisted to both Atheist and Believers. An Atheist could claim Religion is like Jumping off a bridge, would you save that person from Religion? A Believer could claim Atheism is like jumping off a Bridge, would you save that person from Atheism?

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Blackdragon6 wrote:

Azilius wrote:

Sure we can argue that you can also use pray in a different context, but that's not the context we're all referring to. You quoted some story where a man prays in the context we've been referring to. The dictionary lists different definitions, it's up to you to relate the context to the proper definition. You haven't.

Point^
It's all about the Context and yet I see people posting as "It's absolute, an atheist cannot and will not pray" That is all I was trying to say. This Kid shouldn't be forced to Pray if he doesn't want to. He could have Chosen to out of respect, but the school would still be douche bags for trying to subjugate kids to that without a Unanimous decision from everyone that would be involved in the prayer. Atheist can pray. That possibility is not non-existent.

Yes yes and humans can fly. Wanna see?

Spoiler!

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

Azilius wrote:

Blackdragon6 wrote:

Azilius wrote:

Sure we can argue that you can also use pray in a different context, but that's not the context we're all referring to. You quoted some story where a man prays in the context we've been referring to. The dictionary lists different definitions, it's up to you to relate the context to the proper definition. You haven't.

Point^
It's all about the Context and yet I see people posting as "It's absolute, an atheist cannot and will not pray" That is all I was trying to say. This Kid shouldn't be forced to Pray if he doesn't want to. He could have Chosen to out of respect, but the school would still be douche bags for trying to subjugate kids to that without a Unanimous decision from everyone that would be involved in the prayer. Atheist can pray. That possibility is not non-existent.

Yes yes and humans can fly. Wanna see?

Spoiler!

It makes me lol @ the fact that you can no longer debate it with anything except deflective statements that have no bearing on the Subject.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

If that guy is worried that his right to not have to listen to prayer in school is being violated then I guess he could just excuse himself and take it up later with a higher authority where the school will be held accountable for breaking the law and still win his battle without getting physical. But I guess this is just another case of the religious and the atheist which are simply opposite sides of the same coin trying hard to portray their differences and failing. Both parties here were breaking the law.

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

BuDo wrote:

If that guy is worried that his right to not have to listen to prayer in school is being violated then I guess he could just excuse himself and take it up later with a higher authority where the school will be held accountable for breaking the law and still win his battle without getting physical. But I guess this is just another case of the religious and the atheist which are simply opposite sides of the same coin trying hard to portray their differences and failing. Both parties here were breaking the law.

Which is why this story is a clusterfuck with no way to pick a side and distinguish who is right and who is wrong. I Find that Ironic lol

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

BuDo wrote:

If that guy is worried that his right to not have to listen to prayer in school is being violated then I guess he could just excuse himself and take it up later with a higher authority where the school will be held accountable for breaking the law and still win his battle without getting physical. But I guess this is just another case of the religious and the atheist which are simply opposite sides of the same coin trying hard to portray their differences and failing. Both parties here were breaking the law.

Once again, that is not the point.

From Lee v. Weisman case:

Quote:

"To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years." 505 U.S. 577, 595.

Quote:

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." 505 U.S. 577, 592 (citations omitted).

It's a situation which places the dissenter in a position of either 'voluntary' absence from the event or be "indirectly coerced" into participating. This is now known as the 'Coercion Test', which the school seems to have failed. Since you overlooked this the first time, I'll ask you once more: Would you feel the same way if it wasn't an atheist who complained about the prayer at graduation? Again, your false equivalence argument has no place in this discussion.

Maybe I missed something but how did both parties break the law?

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Blackdragon6 wrote:

It makes me lol @ the fact that you can no longer debate it with anything except deflective statements that have no bearing on the Subject.

Sorry but I thought originally that this debate was about praying in the context that was used throughout the topic. Instead you wanted to point out that people can pray in a different context. Great discussion. You didn't even do it properly..the man praying that you quoted earlier is in the context of praying to a god, whereas the praying you say atheists can do is in a different context. You're not going in any general direction with your replies because..well most of them don't make much sense.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

strangelove wrote:

BuDo wrote:

If that guy is worried that his right to not have to listen to prayer in school is being violated then I guess he could just excuse himself and take it up later with a higher authority where the school will be held accountable for breaking the law and still win his battle without getting physical. But I guess this is just another case of the religious and the atheist which are simply opposite sides of the same coin trying hard to portray their differences and failing. Both parties here were breaking the law.

Once again, that is not the point.

From Lee v. Weisman case:

Quote:

"To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years." 505 U.S. 577, 595.

Really?...No one is forcing her to not experience "one of life's most significant occasions" if she had left during the prayer and returned afterwards. If missing 5-10 minutes out of your graduation ceremony can have that effect on you then I suppose a bathroom break..smoke break...or even wanting to go stretch your legs is out of the question. She probably would have argued that her societal and cultural privileges were being denied if 90% of the graduation attendees left the school grounds for 10 minutes to pray. People bitch too much. (myself included)

Quote:

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." 505 U.S. 577, 592 (citations omitted).

strangelove wrote:

It's a situation which places the dissenter in a position of either 'voluntary' absence from the event or be "indirectly coerced" into participating. This is now known as the 'Coercion Test', which the school seems to have failed. Since you overlooked this the first time, I'll ask you once more: Would you feel the same way if it wasn't an atheist who complained about the prayer at graduation? Again, your false equivalence argument has no place in this discussion.

Explain to me how he would be "indirectly coerced" into participating? He'd somehow find himself compelled to clasp his hands and outer a few words? Does being surrounded by people praying suddenly makes him start to have doubt about his beliefs? I highly doubt that.

And yes "anyone" and "everyone" who behaved in this manner I'd have a problem with. The religious ass wipes who treated him like garbage I also have a problem with if that makes you feel better. He's already done the right thing by making a formal complaint prior to this. The law, which you feel he's so right in trying to uphold doesn't care for vigilante justice in any form. He's disturbing the peace and totally ignoring the fact that they are some within the ceremony that don't care either way and would rather have their graduation ceremony uninterrupted. He should take it up with an higher authority.

strangelove wrote:

Maybe I missed something but how did both parties break the law?

I'm sure his attempts where not peaceful. And there's more to that story that isn't public. He could still win his battle in the manner that I've already stated.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

BuDo wrote:

Really?...No one is forcing her to not experience "one of life's most significant occasions" if she had left during the prayer and returned afterwards. If missing 5-10 minutes out of your graduation ceremony can have that effect on you then I suppose a bathroom break..smoke break...or even wanting to go stretch your legs is out of the question. She probably would have argued that her societal and cultural privileges were being denied if 90% of the graduation attendees left the school grounds for 10 minutes to pray. People bitch too much. (myself included)

Quote:

"To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years." 505 U.S. 577, 595.

(Referring to bolded portion) I'm not sure how much clearer this point can be made. In the Weisman case, the student would not have voluntarily removed herself from the ceremony. She would have been forced to do so due to the circumstances, which would be involuntary. All those activities you mentioned that would excuse her from the ceremony are voluntary, meaning they were based on her decision and her decision only. You have already established that your personal dissent would be one based on apathy, but to expect others to hold that same indifference is just delusional. Your inability to empathize with different perspectives is incredibly detrimental to the discussion.

BuDo wrote:

Explain to me how he would be "indirectly coerced" into participating? He'd somehow find himself compelled to clasp his hands and outer a few words? Does being surrounded by people praying suddenly makes him start to have doubt about his beliefs? I highly doubt that.

Quote:

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." 505 U.S. 577, 592 (citations omitted).

(Referring to bolded portion) Again, how much clearer can this be? I didn't use the quotes for aesthetic purposes.

Coercion Test

Quote:

"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

Full Context here: Lee v. Weisman

At this point, I'm just wondering if you even read anything at all.

BuDo wrote:

And yes "anyone" and "everyone" who behaved in this manner I'd have a problem with. The religious ass wipes who treated him like garbage I also have a problem with if that makes you feel better. He's already done the right thing by making a formal complaint prior to this. The law, which you feel he's so right in trying to uphold doesn't care for vigilante justice in any form. He's disturbing the peace and totally ignoring the fact that they are some within the ceremony that don't care either way and would rather have their graduation ceremony uninterrupted. He should take it up with an higher authority.

Vigilante justice? Did he unplug her mic before she said the prayer or something? Do you even know what vigilante justice means? If anything, the student reciting the prayer is the one who disrupted the peace by breaking the agreement both parties came to about having a moment of silence. That's kind of an important fact to omit.

BuDo wrote:

I'm sure his attempts where not peaceful. And there's more to that story that isn't public. He could still win his battle in the manner that I've already stated.

What in the world are you basing this on? My fundamental issue with your posts is that time and time again, you base your reasoning on assumptions, presuppositions, and false truths. How are you "sure"? It's incredibly disingenuous to create such glaring fabrications when they can so easily be proven false, and I have to spend time shooting them down to get to your point, assuming one even exists.

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

BuDo wrote:

strangelove wrote:

Maybe I missed something but how did both parties break the law?

I'm sure his attempts where not peaceful. And there's more to that story that isn't public. He could still win his battle in the manner that I've already stated.

Oh dear..

magisuns · **Posted:** Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:42 pm

lol discussions
Anyways, I feel pretty neutral about it but logically, more to the atheist's side. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the law, it is still the law in the place they live, which they agree to while they live there. Whether or not he had positive or negative intentions, he was still attempting to enforce the law or at least present it to the people of the community, so that they could stop their prayer or whatever. Since they reacted so poorly, it just adds even more to the atheist's side as well. I'm pretty sure that if they just stopped it there, made it a moment of silence, or didn't go on with the continuous harassment, this would not have gotten to the proportion that it has.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

magisuns wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if they just stopped it there, made it a moment of silence

Why even that? Well, it's a graduation, not a funeral.

dom · **Posted:** Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:54 pm

the.unseen. wrote:

Burningwolf wrote:

If a person is about to jump of a bridge, would you respect his decision or would you try to save him?
That is how I feel about religion...
It is a moral suicide...

So who do you find more moral? Buddhist of Tibet (Whom are religious) or the government of the PRC (whom are known as an anti-religious government)? I mean the conversation can go both ways if you want it to.

No it can't.

The PRC government isn't founded on religious ideologies. When people blow up abortion clinics, mutilate the genitals of their children, fly planes into buildings, or hunt down authors and artists it's done in the name of religion.

In all abusive "atheist" regimes it is the government that fills in the role of religion and whatever actions may result, it is not done in the name of God.

When China executes someone for crimes against the state, it's done in the name of the state and for the state. When a woman is tortured, mutilated and killed in Iran for speaking to another man, it's done in the name of religion.

While Buddhists are generally less radical, you just need to look to Sri Lanka. Not to mention that Buddhism is a composite of religion and philosophy, and that there are quite a few that identify themselves as Atheist-Buddhist.

Silkroad Online Forums

Atheist student threatened & disowned for protesting prayer

Who is online