Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: clear enought?

Absolutely, I knew what your picture was for the first time around. It simply has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I thought there was a thread to catch all the random Atheism vs Theism posts? Post it there - at least it'll be on topic.

At 11/14/11 03:21 AM, Gario wrote:

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: clear enought?

Absolutely, I knew what your picture was for the first time around. It simply has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I thought there was a thread to catch all the random Atheism vs Theism posts? Post it there - at least it'll be on topic.

He's already posted it in every active topic that has anything to do with religion. I don't think he actually has original thoughts, he just repeatedly shows pictures and references youtube videos so that other people can do the arguing for him which just makes the picture hypocritical instead of having its intended meaning.

At 11/14/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote:

He's already posted it in every active topic that has anything to do with religion. I don't think he actually has original thoughts, he just repeatedly shows pictures and references youtube videos so that other people can do the arguing for him which just makes the picture hypocritical instead of having its intended meaning.

No, it makes the picture irrelevant in this particular situation, I don't see how it makes him an hypocrite however.

At 11/14/11 11:33 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: No, it makes the picture irrelevant in this particular situation, I don't see how it makes him an hypocrite however.

It's irrelevant in this situation no matter how many times he posted it. He's a hypocrite for using that picture to claim that religion brainwashes children when he himself is incapable of individual thought or rational discussion.

This is pretty ridiculous. Religious practices are (or should be permissible) as long as they are not done in an attempt to influence the religious behaviors of someone else.

At 11/14/11 11:42 AM, EKublai wrote: This is pretty ridiculous. Religious practices are (or should be permissible) as long as they are not done in an attempt to influence the religious behaviors of someone else.

Do you believe that one can unintentionally influence others by nature of their status and the location of their action?

At 11/14/11 11:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/14/11 11:42 AM, EKublai wrote: This is pretty ridiculous. Religious practices are (or should be permissible) as long as they are not done in an attempt to influence the religious behaviors of someone else.

Do you believe that one can unintentionally influence others by nature of their status and the location of their action?

I would also like to add that nobody lives in a bubble and therefore everybody influences their surroundings.

At 11/14/11 12:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: I would also like to add that nobody lives in a bubble and therefore everybody influences their surroundings.

So you're saying, a teacher, by their very nature of beign a teacher always carries around the authority and agency of the school?

At 11/14/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote:

At 11/14/11 03:21 AM, Gario wrote:

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: clear enought?

Absolutely, I knew what your picture was for the first time around.

im sure you did......

He's already posted it in every active topic that has anything to do with religion. I don't think he actually has original thoughts, he just repeatedly shows pictures and references youtube videos so that other people can do the arguing for him which just makes the picture hypocritical instead of having its intended meaning.

a christian criticizing originality of others, this is delicious, i already waited for you people to have an original thought for 2000 years, should i give you other 2000 ?
and believe me when i tell you, i do have original thoughts, or should i write that on a fantasy book for you to believe it?

Right now we're at a bit of an awkward transitional period due to the litigious nature of society, particularly in the US. On top of that, the public discourse between atheism and theism is pretty adversarial, which ultimately is harmful to both parties.

As a result, right now there are a lot of lawsuits, court orders and new policies flying around, so the legal boundaries of acceptable behaviour are pretty fuzzy. Because of this, you get some twitchiness in school administration, as they try to figure out how to cover their asses with all parties. The community prayer event response is almost certainly a case of this.

The other potential outcome, which could possibly be happening in the second instance with the coaches bowing their heads, is the intentional strict application of a new policy to draw attention to overly restrictive or vague rules. While a little extreme, this can get the public on board to support a change to the policy, which would result in the reprimand being expunged anyway.

At 11/14/11 03:03 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

At 11/14/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote:

At 11/14/11 03:21 AM, Gario wrote:

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: clear enought?

Absolutely, I knew what your picture was for the first time around.

im sure you did......

He's already posted it in every active topic that has anything to do with religion. I don't think he actually has original thoughts, he just repeatedly shows pictures and references youtube videos so that other people can do the arguing for him which just makes the picture hypocritical instead of having its intended meaning.

a christian criticizing originality of others, this is delicious, i already waited for you people to have an original thought for 2000 years, should i give you other 2000 ?
and believe me when i tell you, i do have original thoughts, or should i write that on a fantasy book for you to believe it?

wow i don't even no what to say. you are an INTOLERANT person if you hate people for their beliefs way to be a rude person to people. if you are trying to troll it's not funny. way to go. also you are unoriginal and pull the same stuff so yeah way to be a hypocrite.

At 11/14/11 05:26 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: wow i don't even no what to say. you are an INTOLERANT person if you hate people for their beliefs way to be a rude person to people. if you are trying to troll it's not funny. way to go. also you are unoriginal and pull the same stuff so yeah way to be a hypocrite.

If he's trying to troll then he's just achieved his query. No need to feed him anymore.

I think Elfer holds a good point on the subject. I'd like to see that thought developed a bit further.

At 11/14/11 01:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/14/11 12:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: I would also like to add that nobody lives in a bubble and therefore everybody influences their surroundings.

So you're saying, a teacher, by their very nature of beign a teacher always carries around the authority and agency of the school?

Actually, no not at all, it amazes me how you managed to get my point so wrong, I think your brain should be studied by science.

But in all seriousness, no I meant exactly what I meant. People live with other people, we call this "society". People have different set of values and "beliefs". These are part of them. People live with other people. People's beliefs and values influence their actions. People influence other people trough their actions or beliefs in various ways.

Is that enough for you?

At 11/14/11 11:12 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Actually, no not at all, it amazes me how you managed to get my point so wrong, I think your brain should be studied by science.

I consciously went out of my way to put words in your mouth hoping to get this damn thread back on topic.

But in all seriousness, no I meant exactly what I meant. People live with other people, we call this "society". People have different set of values and "beliefs". These are part of them. People live with other people. People's beliefs and values influence their actions. People influence other people trough their actions or beliefs in various ways.

So what?

How you tie that to the issue at hand?

Do you believe that a schoolteacher's status as a school official carries with them to the point that if they participate in any prayer event held on school grounds, it gives the impression of school support for that religious event?

If not, how do you address this worry?

Is that enough for you?

Quantity doesn't matter if it's all off topic.

At 11/14/11 11:12 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: But in all seriousness, no I meant exactly what I meant. People live with other people, we call this "society". People have different set of values and "beliefs". These are part of them. People live with other people. People's beliefs and values influence their actions. People influence other people trough their actions or beliefs in various ways.

Is that enough for you?

Sure thing - actually this is on topic. Strictly coming from a constitutional point of view, though, it's not unconstitutional for a person to influence another person's beliefs. Christians try all the time, atheists counter-argue to try to convince their points, it's all the same in the larger scope of things. People want to convince others that they're right, that's just the way things are. It's unconstitutional for a state run facility to coerce someone using religion, or someone using the power of the state to coerce a student into a religion.

In the school Christian gathering, the teacher has every right to say what he/she believes on that podium, according to the Constitution - as long as they're not using their position as a state teacher to influence a student, they're in the right to preach however they like. Granted, if the teacher was outside of school and using his/her position over a student to force a religion down their throat then they're still breaking the law, and even in the case that they're just talking about it to a student it's still a bit coercive, but in an event where everyone attending already knows what they're going in for it's silly to argue that the teacher's position has any meaning anymore. You're not able to force something down someone's throat when they already agree with you, so if a student is at this event it's because they already share the teacher's religion.

The impression about the school 'hosting' the event, this is not an event organized by the school; the school is merely a venue. IF the school gave the people the venue because they were Christian then I would call bullshit on that (that is definitely the state exercising power in favor of a religion), but it's more likely than not that in this capitalist society the group of people payed for it. As long as it was open to everyone then there's nothing wrong with the state making money off of Christians who think they need a space to stay for a night. That's capitalism.

In the school coach prayer, it would be a violation if the coaches lead in a group prayer with the students. Their position as their teacher makes them a figure with power vested by the state, so leading a group in anything religious is an abuse of that power (or militantly atheistic, as the case may be). Only a religiously neutral position can be taken when they're telling the students to do something. Bowing one's head in prayer in response to an already public prayer, however, is an entirely private action. There is no exercise of power over the students. They are not using their affluence as a state representative. They are simply responding to a religious stimulus that's already there. If a religious person is restricted the right to religiously respond appropriately to something due to a state mandate, that's an abuse of religious power by the state, and thus is unconstitutional.

In the American Constitution it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The contemporary concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams; who had written in 1644 of "Hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"- Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

In this; schools participating in religious practice are infringing the constitution and the secular values it was founded upon. A secular nation is a fairer nation as it respects all cultures and religions, giving them equal rights to practice outside of state and not interfere with politics or education.

At 11/15/11 03:37 AM, MsRukia wrote: In the American Constitution it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

You start off really strong here.

The contemporary concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

You'd be surprised how many people actually think that separation of church and state is really part of the Constitution and try to use it to force all public areas to remove anything that they interpret as being part of religion (although I'm guessing by the way you wrote your date that you're not American so it makes sense that you actually know the source of that phrase).

In this; schools participating in religious practice are infringing the constitution and the secular values it was founded upon. A secular nation is a fairer nation as it respects all cultures and religions, giving them equal rights to practice outside of state and not interfere with politics or education.

And here's where you seem to have dropped the ball completely. I could be misinterpreting what you wrote, but it sounds like you're saying the school is wrong for allowing the prayer event to be held there. The event wasn't even during school hours though and nobody was forced to come. The real issue is that the school itself was telling teachers how much they were allowed to participate at the event that they were attending in their personal time and not as school officials which is an infringement on their first amendment rights. It's the same issue with the second story about the coaches who were reprimanded for simply bowing their heads during a prayer. They weren't telling other people what to believe or forcing others to join them in a prayer, they simply acknowledged the prayers of the players by bowing their head.

At 11/14/11 03:03 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i already waited for you people to have an original thought for 2000 years,

Oh, so you're Highlander now?

At 11/15/11 09:27 AM, djack wrote: And here's where you seem to have dropped the ball completely. I could be misinterpreting what you wrote, but it sounds like you're saying the school is wrong for allowing the prayer event to be held there. The event wasn't even during school hours though and nobody was forced to come. The real issue is that the school itself was telling teachers how much they were allowed to participate at the event that they were attending in their personal time and not as school officials which is an infringement on their first amendment rights. It's the same issue with the second story about the coaches who were reprimanded for simply bowing their heads during a prayer. They weren't telling other people what to believe or forcing others to join them in a prayer, they simply acknowledged the prayers of the players by bowing their head.

It's a problematic position. The difficulty with law is that it can never accurately account for each individual scenario as they are occasionally complex, detrimental or convoluted. Once in a while something happens and brings the law into question.

The fortunate thing is that nobody was actually punished, merely lectured to. They were using a public building and carried out a religious practice. So there was an infringement of the separation state and church. You could call it pedantic, or pointless to act upon it. To a particular extent I honestly agree with you, it isn't severe in any way and it was something minuscule. It's an area where the constitution is foggy on, but the law was acted out and there was no exceptional treatment at least.

At 11/15/11 09:40 AM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 11/14/11 03:03 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i already waited for you people to have an original thought for 2000 years,

Oh, so you're Highlander now?

something like that

At 11/14/11 03:03 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

a christian criticizing originality of others, this is delicious, i already waited for you people to have an original thought for 2000 years, should i give you other 2000 ?
and believe me when i tell you, i do have original thoughts, or should i write that on a fantasy book for you to believe it?

Sigh..... ignorance at its finest.

At 11/15/11 10:10 AM, MsRukia wrote: They were using a public building and carried out a religious practice. So there was an infringement of the separation state and church. You could call it pedantic, or pointless to act upon it. To a particular extent I honestly agree with you, it isn't severe in any way and it was something minuscule. It's an area where the constitution is foggy on, but the law was acted out and there was no exceptional treatment at least.

To this I respond...

IF the school gave the people the venue because they were Christian then I would call bullshit on that (that is definitely the state exercising power in favor of a religion), but it's more likely than not that in this capitalist society the group of people payed for it. As long as it was an open option to everyone then there's nothing wrong with the state making money off of Christians who think they need a space to stay for a night. That's capitalism.

Whether or not a schoolshould be used like that... Mmm, alright that's an arguably valid point. Personally, I think it'd be a waste if it was going unused when the state could've been making money selling the space as a venue (and if the people have the money it shouldn't matter who they are). Again, if there were special favors involved then I'd be calling bullshit along with you, but I have no reason to believe that this is the case.

And here's where you seem to have dropped the ball completely. I could be misinterpreting what you wrote, but it sounds like you're saying the school is wrong for allowing the prayer event to be held there. The event wasn't even during school hours though and nobody was forced to come. The real issue is that the school itself was telling teachers how much they were allowed to participate at the event that they were attending in their personal time and not as school officials which is an infringement on their first amendment rights. It's the same issue with the second story about the coaches who were reprimanded for simply bowing their heads during a prayer. They weren't telling other people what to believe or forcing others to join them in a prayer, they simply acknowledged the prayers of the players by bowing their head.

Once the space for the prayer meeting was rented out, it was in the hands of the event coordinators and did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech/religion. The school did overstep its bounds telling teachers not to participate.

As a coach, acting in his capacity as a coach (authority figure), being paid thusly and while at a school sponsored game (taxpayer dollars) he clearly endorsed religion when he bowed his head in prayer. It's not at all the same issue with the second story, regardless of whether they were leading the prayer or not, they participated in it and that gives enough cause in my mind to admonish them.

I pray for a secular nation.

At 12/11/11 01:12 AM, Adam-Beilgard wrote: As a coach, acting in his capacity as a coach (authority figure), being paid thusly and while at a school sponsored game (taxpayer dollars) he clearly endorsed religion when he bowed his head in prayer. It's not at all the same issue with the second story, regardless of whether they were leading the prayer or not, they participated in it and that gives enough cause in my mind to admonish them.

I'd like to know your logic behind your assumption that bowing your head alone means you endorse religion.

At 12/11/11 03:20 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: I'd like to know your logic behind your assumption that bowing your head alone means you endorse religion.

He said 'bowed their heads during student led prayer'.

bowing your head alone

bowing your head alone

bowing your head alone

The more Atheistic I become, the less respect I have towards the idea of a separation of church and state, however you care to define that clause in the 1st amendment. [or if your view of the separation is not related to any fidelity to a *sacred text*] It's not that I support a State imposed enforcement of one particular religion or the abolition of all religions thereof, but

Governments are inherently religious; even without reference to a supernatural being, they have all the trappings of religious institutions. [With the exception of certain purist strands of protestantism]. They have their sacred texts, sacred founders, age of miracles, their sacred temples, their sacred cows, etc.

The first states were religious and the pretense of divine superiority on the part of State agents has continued well past the time into the age of Democracy. The kinghead no longer embodies the will of anything externally divine, but instead embodies 'The will of the people' - As if such a thing could actually exist in a complex and diverse society.

So we're always talking about people being free from religious imposition.

Yet most people scoff at the idea of people being able to choose their education as they like. Most people scoff at the idea of people being able to choose their own social safety nets or healthcare. Or first class mail delivery.

So what is so different with people being to choose their own method of worship?

The 'Universalistic' view that most people have towards the above things probably reflects the view held by Europeans in the middle ages about Religion. That in their gut they felt it was 'wrong' for someone to worship differently then they, and so the state was justified in ensuring conformity with the law.

At 12/11/11 04:45 AM, Adam-Beilgard wrote:

At 12/11/11 03:20 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: I'd like to know your logic behind your assumption that bowing your head alone means you endorse religion.

He said 'bowed their heads during student led prayer'.

bowing your head alone

bowing your head alone

bowing your head alone

That doesn't really answer my question. but since you have to be a smartass about it. Let me rephrase the question. How does the act of bowing his head by itself during the student led prayer mean that he endorses religion.?

That doesn't really answer my question. but since you have to be a smartass about it. Let me rephrase the question. How does the act of bowing his head by itself during the student led prayer mean that he endorses religion.?

It did answer your question, but I'll bite, anyway.

Let's use simple substitution.

A student shows up for the game and says his voodoo doll wasn't working right. So he prayed to the juju from the mountain and realized he hasn't made a sacrifice in a while. That afternoon, he rounded up some neighborhood cats, built an altar, slaughtered them and made a fetish out of their teeth. He then hands out cups, explaining that it's just cherry kool-aid but it symbolizes the blood of those innocents and everyone needs to drink or they'll have a bad game. The coach takes his cup, and when everyone is ready, he drinks the kool-aid while rubbing his charm, a jade figure of an orisha.

By going along with that, he's saying it's ok. He probably goes along with it because he practices voodoo, himself. That doesn't change the fact that one of his players brought religion to a public school function. And if that particular example happened in real life, you can bet Fox News would have been all over 'those pagans forcing voodoo on us'.

This isn't about free speech being trampled. Not for the people in this thread, and any like it. To them, their religion is being persecuted, and they take it personally. Those players' rights were violated when their coach allowed (and participated in) prayer to a god they might not believe in before the game.

Don't pray in my school and I won't learn in your church.