[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Atheism in America is very much different to atheism in the UK/Europe it seems[/quote]
Explain.[/quote]
Yes, please do.
Especially the difference between the coming out of the closet zeal of American atheists as opposed to the mildly interested “oh, you actually believe that stuff?” European variety.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“…nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[/quote]
What does this have to do with the story? are you saying the school has a free exercise claim to post this banner?
[quote]orion wrote:
Especially the difference between the coming out of the closet zeal of American atheists as opposed to the mildly interested “oh, you actually believe that stuff?” European variety.
[/quote]
This is what I mean really. Atheism in America seems really strident and, in some though not all cases, quite intolerant. Whereas in Britain we have a Monarch who is head of a Church who is very much Establishment - yet only a few people are keen for disestablishment. Although some of the most known ‘fundamentalist atheists’ are British (Dawkins, HItchens) I think there is a more co-operative atmosphere. I went to a Church of Scotland school (before that when I lived in England a Church of England school) were every day we had chapel service and a prayer but people including myself quite happily expressed atheistic (or, disbelieving views) in conjunction with an active Christian presence, and this seems pretty normal for the Britain I have experienced.
Why this is the case I’m not sure
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Good decision. The government - a public school no less - has no business taking a position that clearly supports religion vs. no religion, or theism vs. atheism. IMO, this kind of blatant governmental endorsement of religion is a large contributing factor for the ridiculous stereotypes many have of atheists.
The more visible governmental endorsement of religion becomes the easier it is for people to justify their ridiculous ideas that non-christians are not “true Americans” or are untrustworthy. But that’s just my little hypothesis.
There are so many things wrong with this kind of endorsement but i’ll focus just on this tidbit: the school employee said the prayer is not denominational, therefore it is “A-OK.” That says nothing of the fact that it clearly demonstrates that this school believes religion takes precedence over no-religion, and theism over atheism.
Teach math, science, history, civics, etc. Theological stances about the existence of god do not belong in a public, tax-funded school.[/quote]
What is so totally awesome about this post, so frickin cool, groovy even, is that it reinforces what I’ve been saying on this board for a long time - atheism is just another religion.
Thanks, Meinz.[/quote]
Please explain how this “reinforces” your belief that atheism is just another religion.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Good decision. The government - a public school no less - has no business taking a position that clearly supports religion vs. no religion, or theism vs. atheism. IMO, this kind of blatant governmental endorsement of religion is a large contributing factor for the ridiculous stereotypes many have of atheists.
The more visible governmental endorsement of religion becomes the easier it is for people to justify their ridiculous ideas that non-christians are not “true Americans” or are untrustworthy. But that’s just my little hypothesis.
There are so many things wrong with this kind of endorsement but i’ll focus just on this tidbit: the school employee said the prayer is not denominational, therefore it is “A-OK.” That says nothing of the fact that it clearly demonstrates that this school believes religion takes precedence over no-religion, and theism over atheism.
Teach math, science, history, civics, etc. Theological stances about the existence of god do not belong in a public, tax-funded school.[/quote]
What is so totally awesome about this post, so frickin cool, groovy even, is that it reinforces what I’ve been saying on this board for a long time - atheism is just another religion.
Thanks, Meinz.[/quote]
He’s wrong.
It demonstrates that the school doesn’t believe in secularism, the separation of church and state as written in the constitution.
This has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Good decision. The government - a public school no less - has no business taking a position that clearly supports religion vs. no religion, or theism vs. atheism. IMO, this kind of blatant governmental endorsement of religion is a large contributing factor for the ridiculous stereotypes many have of atheists.
The more visible governmental endorsement of religion becomes the easier it is for people to justify their ridiculous ideas that non-christians are not “true Americans” or are untrustworthy. But that’s just my little hypothesis.
There are so many things wrong with this kind of endorsement but i’ll focus just on this tidbit: the school employee said the prayer is not denominational, therefore it is “A-OK.” That says nothing of the fact that it clearly demonstrates that this school believes religion takes precedence over no-religion, and theism over atheism.
Teach math, science, history, civics, etc. Theological stances about the existence of god do not belong in a public, tax-funded school.[/quote]
What is so totally awesome about this post, so frickin cool, groovy even, is that it reinforces what I’ve been saying on this board for a long time - atheism is just another religion.
Thanks, Meinz.[/quote]
Please explain how this “reinforces” your belief that atheism is just another religion.[/quote]
You basically used the wrong term and now he’s trying to get you to admit something that’s simply untrue.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Especially the difference between the coming out of the closet zeal of American atheists as opposed to the mildly interested “oh, you actually believe that stuff?” European variety.
[/quote]
This is what I mean really. Atheism in America seems really strident and, in some though not all cases, quite intolerant. Whereas in Britain we have a Monarch who is head of a Church who is very much Establishment - yet only a few people are keen for disestablishment. Although some of the most known ‘fundamentalist atheists’ are British (Dawkins, HItchens) I think there is a more co-operative atmosphere. I went to a Church of Scotland school (before that when I lived in England a Church of England school) were every day we had chapel service and a prayer but people including myself quite happily expressed atheistic (or, disbelieving views) in conjunction with an active Christian presence, and this seems pretty normal for the Britain I have experienced.
Why this is the case I’m not sure[/quote]
And this is what I was talking about. Nobody really gets bent out of shape or butt-hurt by a “prayer banner” being displayed. Or even open chapel service with believers apparently. This is much more truly tolerant than the variety of scathing, litigious, and screaming bunch we have over here. This is sort of what I was getting at earlier: ok, we have to be tolerant of views we don’t hold ourselves, yes. So why can’t people do this instead of get all frothy at the mouth with indignation over a damn poster (or 10 commandments carving, or whatever) that’s been there for 50 or 100 years already.
To be sure, this doesn’t just go one way and I’m not suggesting it should. But I always felt there was an awful lot of indignation from a crowd that shouldn’t care anyways due to their directly held lack of belief in the supernatural.
Besides, it’s much easier to have an interesting and deep dialogue about the important issues if everybody is more along these lines. Or even just accepting that these people that believe opposite of you are actual human beings who are just as deserving as you are of respect, or at least civility. But bottom line, I’d much rather talk–or not even talk, just live around or work around-- a person from Bambi’s example than the crowd of lawsuit pushers today. And I might say this is not exclusive to the OP and issue, but very much something I appreciate in general.
Feels and smells like laziness to me. If parents or students weren’t so lazy, they’d move their kids (or themselves) to a school that doesn’t offend their religious sensitivities (or lack thereof).
School puts up religious banner and you don’t like it? Change schools.
If more people did this, the world would be a slightly better place.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
…It demonstrates that the school doesn’t believe in secularism, the separation of church and state as written in the constitution…[/quote]
BUZZZZZ!
You are hereby disqualified. The “separation of church and state as written in the constitution” does not exist.[/quote]
The absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.
Keep trolling!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Good decision. The government - a public school no less - has no business taking a position that clearly supports religion vs. no religion, or theism vs. atheism. IMO, this kind of blatant governmental endorsement of religion is a large contributing factor for the ridiculous stereotypes many have of atheists.
The more visible governmental endorsement of religion becomes the easier it is for people to justify their ridiculous ideas that non-christians are not “true Americans” or are untrustworthy. But that’s just my little hypothesis.
There are so many things wrong with this kind of endorsement but i’ll focus just on this tidbit: the school employee said the prayer is not denominational, therefore it is “A-OK.” That says nothing of the fact that it clearly demonstrates that this school believes religion takes precedence over no-religion, and theism over atheism.
Teach math, science, history, civics, etc. Theological stances about the existence of god do not belong in a public, tax-funded school.[/quote]
What is so totally awesome about this post, so frickin cool, groovy even, is that it reinforces what I’ve been saying on this board for a long time - atheism is just another religion.
Thanks, Meinz.[/quote]
Please explain how this “reinforces” your belief that atheism is just another religion.[/quote]
The rabid stridency as even our European posters have mentioned is evidence of a “religious” conviction. This is a war of faiths.
In Europe, apparently, it is more of an occasional skirmish.
Your fervor and zeal in that post, Meinz, was distinctly on display.[/quote]
Weird how I’m opposed to the removal of the banner yet I’m an atheist huh?
I must recheck my Dawkins scripture to see if I’m being lead astray…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The Court rules that Plaintiff [Ahlquist] has standing in this matter and rules in her favor on the merits of this dispute. The Court also orders the immediate removal of the Prayer Mural from the auditorium at Cranston West.
?
The Court refrains from second-guessing the expressed motives of the Committee members, but nonetheless must point out that tradition is a murky and dangerous bog. While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve. At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction. The Court concludes that Cranston?s purposes in installing and, more recently, voting to retain the Prayer Mural are not clearly secular.
?
Plaintiff is clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in light of the hostile response she has received from her community.
[/quote]
LOL at the tolerance and diversity line, what a crock. What tolerate everyone but christians.
The community is the primary supporter of the school, if they wish to disply it, it is their decision.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Honestly, they ought to just make the Grinch the offical Atheist mascot. [/quote]
The time of religious privilege is slowly coming to an end. May as well get with the times and accept it.
[/quote]
yeah it is now time to persecute the christians, oh your from Canada, who gives a rats ass what you think. Don’t worry we will get our country back in order.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Honestly, they ought to just make the Grinch the offical Atheist mascot. [/quote]
The time of religious privilege is slowly coming to an end. May as well get with the times and accept it.
[/quote]
yeah it is now time to persecute the christians, oh your from Canada, who gives a rats ass what you think. Don’t worry we will get our country back in order. [/quote]
LOL
The persecution of Christians catchphrase is easily one of my favourites. Really you’re just using this line to discourage people with opposing views to your own.
Based on the threats towards the young woman who brought about the case, one must ask who is really persecuting who?
Thanks for sharing that you care little about my opinion. Maybe you should stop replying to me then huh??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“…nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[/quote]
What does this have to do with the story? are you saying the school has a free exercise claim to post this banner?
[/quote]
Well, let’s carefully examine things.
IF the “separation of church and state” which incidentally is an invented phrase - one that appears NOWWHERE in any founding document whatsoever - is derived from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the first clause of the First Amendment, than why can’t the second clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” have an equally strong, equally enforced derivative?
[/quote]
You are confusing the rights granted by these clauses. The establishment clause prevents the government from endorsing religion over non-religion, or one religious belief over another. The free exercise clause applies to individuals. the school does not have a free exercise clause argument because it is not acting as an individual.