It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom Of Speech, Yeah Boy, Just Watch What You Say

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Jungle. were talkin public school here not some grandiose philosophical BS. Quit with the rhetoric and address the concept you started in the first place.


Ahh, but we are talking philosophy. I believe on a fundamental level that this country thrives because everyone is allowed to speak their mind. You hate white people? Go have yourself a million man march. You hate jews? Go have yourself a parade. Be sure to show your faces, so we can know the idiots behind the ideas.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that censorship is acceptable, as long as it is pseudo-universal.

You're limiting the discussion to schools, so I'll do the same. Again. Why are some ideas, even when presented in a constructive manner that is not disruptive to the learning process, not permitted to be expressed in school in your philosophy?

You have a problem talking about religion. If people want to be able to talk about religion, they have to be middle to upper class financially and send their kids to a private religious school. Freedom of speech is not a commodity afforded lower class kids, they're not good enough because their parents can't afford to send them to a freedom of religion school.

Now, let's say this makes sense, and that idea can be censored in public school because some don't want to hear about it. Well, there are groups that don't want to hear about the holocaust because they think it's Jewish propaganda. Does that mean we should have holocaust private schools where the holocaust can be taught? What about evolution? Same deal there.

Now, I know where you're about to go. Come on, JJ, the holocause and evolution are historical and scientific fact, respectivly. Guess what, those who believe in a religion believe it to be a fact, too. Why are some theories allowed to be presented, and others not? Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by whaaa
Jungle. were talkin public school here not some grandiose philosophical BS. Quit with the rhetoric and address the concept you started in the first place.


Now, I know where you're about to go. Come on, JJ, the holocause and evolution are historical and scientific fact, respectivly. Guess what, those who believe in a religion believe it to be a fact, too. Why are some theories allowed to be presented, and others not? Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?



Dude, thanks for doing my thinking for me!!
I'll tell you what; why don't you decide what is acceptable and what isnt for the rest of us. That may be a cross for you to bare that you aren't prepared for. I have experienced spiritual arrogance, and in my maturity I have learned that I know that I don't know. I have opinions just like you but you know what they say about opinions; they are just like a*******;
everybodys got one.

Peace and Love
whaaa



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Dude, thanks for doing my thinking for me!!
Wasn't too tough




I'll tell you what; why don't you decide what is acceptable and what isnt for the rest of us. That may be a cross for you to bare that you aren't prepared for.


I already have, and it is based on the Constitution of the United States of America. Everything. Everything is acceptable, so far as the law is concerned, for people to take in. Does that mean I'll like it? Heck no! You come to me and tell me the holocaust never happened, and I'll try to patiently explain to you that you're an idiot. Some movie comes out supporting that claim, I'll tell my local theater that, if they play that film, they'll no longer have any business from me. They, in their private enterprisistic (is that a word?) legal rights, can choose to show the film or not show the film, either based on personal (owner) viewpoints or based on increasing capitol. I would have the right, if they chose to show the film, never to go there again. That's censorship imposed by citizens, and the law never has to get involved.

So legally, all viewpoints should be permitted. I should be able to stand on a corner and denounce African Americans, if I choose. You should be able to stand on a corner and decry the idiocy of Christianity, if you so choose.

And my kids, when asked to pick a song to sing in public, should be allowed to pick a song that talks about God.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by whaaa
Dude, thanks for doing my thinking for me!!
Wasn't too tough




I'll tell you what; why don't you decide what is acceptable and what isnt for the rest of us. That may be a cross for you to bare that you aren't prepared for.


So legally, all viewpoints should be permitted. I should be able to stand on a corner and denounce African Americans,




Have you been drinking???



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Have you been drinking???


So which viewpoints shouldn't be permitted to be expressed? For that matter, who gave you the moral authority to tell others they don't have the moral authority to express their ideas?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
The irony of all ironies is that the more that religion is repressed in schools/state/society the more controversial it gets. In this way, it is little different to other aspects of culture.

Over here in England, religion is much more circumspect, even though christianity is fully integrated into the state. I went to christian schools from the ages of 7-18 and even though we had regular Religious Education lessons (they are compulsory in Britain up to the age of 16), I never felt like christianity was pushed down my throat.

Indeed, it was quite the opposite, christianity was presented as only one of the religions of the world. The bible was taught in an intelligent and thought-provoking manner (no fire & brimstone) and ethical/moral debates were often discussed during RE lessons, as well as 'safe-sex' discussions and important issues that would not fit in any other subjects. If someone at my school had wanted to sing a song about how great God is, the school would have allowed it. However, they would have been picked on mercilously by their peers afterwards for being - well - weird. I'm not saying it is right, more that that is what kids are like.

Religion should be a part of the school curriculum. It is an important part of knowledge and our life and raises a lot of important issues. It is a political power struggle between christian groups and secular authorities when actually both sides need to reach a compromise. Yes, I am fully aware why the constitution is the way it is and the fear that the founding fathers had of religious persecution of minorities (after what they had experienced in England & Europe) but times have changed.

Religion is becoming an increasingly diversive topic and is splitting America apart. Christian groups need to brought into the mainstream (along with other religions) through compromise and negotiation. For good or ill, the religious right is a powerful group and has a genuine complaint - repressing them will make them more and more bitter. Much as the 'war on terror' is a misnomer (taking a hard-line stance on terrorists does not make them nor their greivances go away, it only makes them worse), so it is with religion.

Religion is - and always has been - closely entwined with politics and as such needs to be treated as a political issue. America is being ripped apart between left and right and unless a middle ground can be reached, then this will only get worse.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
And my kids, when asked to pick a song to sing in public, should be allowed to pick a song that talks about God.


Yes, they should. However, this wasn't a completely public function, this was a school function. Schools have been censoring student actions from day one, and they've censored just as many secular performances as Christian. How many kids have been kept from singing songs containing profanity? I remember quite a few times myself from when I was in school that kids wanting to put on some kind of act for a talent show were told that song wasn't appropriate, and it was hardly ever because it was a Christian song.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Wow. So saying Jesus Christ is just as bad as dropping the F-bomb. Talking about God is worse or as bad as this song. Lesse...

"Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from Heaven above
With wisdom, power and love"

=

"I got this long-assed knife,
and your neck looks just right.
My adrenaline's pumpin'.
I got my stereo bumpin'.
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!

Cop killer, better you than me."

huh. Kill the police/God is love...I can see how they're similar. Really. I can. Just as offensive. Makes perfect sense that you would want to prevent such an awful message as God is awesome. Corrupts kids, it does. Makes em shoot eachother. Why, since taking any mention of God out of the classroom, school violence is way down, there haven't been any of those horrible shootings we had back in the 50s, when grade school kids would unload on their classmates. Why, since telling God to get out of our schools, our schools have become peacful, education-driven houses of comfort.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Wow. So saying Jesus Christ is just as bad as dropping the F-bomb.


No, it's not "as bad" from a moral/social standpoint. However, it's just as inappropriate in an educational setting, unless the school is trying to teach (or teach about) religion.



huh. Kill the police/God is love...I can see how they're similar. Really. I can. Just as offensive. Makes perfect sense that you would want to prevent such an awful message as God is awesome.


To someone who doesn't want to sit there and get preached at by someone else, yes, it is just as offensive. To a parent who's raising their child under a different faith, it's just as offensive. If maybe they had someone up there singing the praise of Allah afterwards, then the school could say they were not promoting one religion above others, but that's not the case.

I have yet to hear of a muslim in the US complain about not being able to sing their songs in school. But the minute someone says "Religion isn't appropriate here," in reference to Christ, the spoiled little Christians start throwing their little first-amendment-denied temper tantrums saying they're being oppressed. You want to hear Christian music? TURN ON THE RADIO! There's plenty of stations for it. You name me one station dedicated to Buddhist music. Where's the Hindu equivalent of ETW? And yet you piss and moan about not being able to preach in every environment. When was the last time someone beat the crap out of you for the Spanish Inquisition, when after 9/11 muslims were getting beat just for their religion? Oh, that's right, the Inquisition was from Catholics. My bad--the fact it was done in the name of Christ threw me off.

If I took my kids to a talent show, I'd want to hear talent and not have some religious tract thrown in my face. If the kid is singing about Christ, then they'd better be doing it so well they'd put Pavoratti to shame, and you don't get that by putting a CD of Michael W. Smith on a PA system and screeching along to the portion of the lyrics you know. You want to do religious music? Throw out some Bach, do a segment of Handel's Messiah. Something that takes some skill to sing and can't be mastered by humming along with it in the car on the way to a show where twenty other kids don't feel the need to preach at everyone else.



Corrupts kids, it does. Makes em shoot eachother. Why, since taking any mention of God out of the classroom, school violence is way down, there haven't been any of those horrible shootings we had back in the 50s, when grade school kids would unload on their classmates. Why, since telling God to get out of our schools, our schools have become peacful, education-driven houses of comfort.


Sarcasm noted and disregarded. I grew up without God in my school. I never shot anyone. I grew up without God as a major focus of my life. I'm still doing pretty damned good if you ask me. You can be a good person without being religious. Don't blame taking religion out of schools, blame the parents for being too lazy to teach their kids right from wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
So what did we learn here today? Well, first, talent does not exist in music that contains some kind of message about God (unless the person singing it is the greatest singer in the world, and can prove it by singing one of those more dificult, talented songs like Crying Game):


If I took my kids to a talent show, I'd want to hear talent and not have some religious tract thrown in my face. If the kid is singing about Christ, then they'd better be doing it so well they'd put Pavoratti to shame


Was that it? Nope, we also learned that people are being spoiled if they think the first ammendment applies to them. Instead, we should take it like true Americans, turn over, and let censorship have its way with us. I mean, really, what the heck are people thinking? The law applies to everybody? Go cry in the corner alone, you spoiled little miscreant. :


the spoiled little Christians start throwing their little first-amendment-denied temper tantrums saying they're being oppressed.


So, that freedom of religion clause in the first ammendment only applies to those who do not want the freedom. Check.

And did we learn anything else? You betcha! We learned that if the school is teaching something we disagree with, it is extremely offensive and should not be allowed. So, once again, because Nazis don't believe in the holocaust, the school should have no right to teach it. They don't want their children to be indoctrinated by such an offensive thing as that! Oh, and hey, some native americans may be offended to learn history from the European's perspective in coming to America, we better not teach that. Oh, bugger, forgot, some europeans may be offended if their children don't learn history from the European's perspective...Well, I guess teaching history is just out. Too offensive.

What about science? Well...For some reason I seem to recall this debate where people find one theory offensive, and other people find the other theory offensive...Can't put my finger on what that debate is, though. Ah well, I'm sure it will come to someone else. Guess we should stop teaching geology, astrophysics, astronomy, and biology in school...Some people may find it offensive.

Hmm...Art....That's right out...At least teaching about art from the 1300s on, because there is too much religious undertones or overtones in it, so it might offend folks. That's right out.

Law? Nooooooo, because some crybabies might think those laws apply to them. Plus, they might use those laws to be offending! No, gotta take the law and government off the table.

What about english? Can't do that, spanish speaking Americans might be offended by their language not being taught centrally. Teach both? What about all the other immigrants to this country who might be offended that spanish and english get special treatment while hebrew or russian are ignored? So I guess we can't speak or write in class.

Oh..Bummer...If you can't speak or write...Well, I suppose the whole public school format for education has to be thrown out. Too offensive. That, after all, is what's really important. Sheltering yourself and your children from other opinions, rather than teaching them why your opinion is correct. Heaven forbid your children might not be clones of your ideals!


To someone who doesn't want to sit there and get preached at by someone else, yes, it is just as offensive. To a parent who's raising their child under a different faith, it's just as offensive.


So there it is. Singing Christian music warrents absloutly no talent, Christians need to shut up and stop thinking the law applies to them, and school has to be banned. We learned a lot today!



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So what did we learn here today?


Apparently nothing.



Well, first, talent does not exist in music that contains some kind of message about God (unless the person singing it is the greatest singer in the world, and can prove it by singing one of those more dificult, talented songs like Crying Game):


I believe I mentioned in a previous post that pretty much all popular music has little artistic merit:



I make that point because most popular Christian music has as much artistic value as other forms of popular music which, barring jazz, are very rarely found in school curriculum


Other forms of popular music are allowed in schools because there's nothing in the constitution that calls for "separation of art (or crap in most cases) and state." That's the argument most thrown around when dealing with schools, as public schools are generally viewed as an extension of the state, in one way or another.



Was that it? Nope, we also learned that people are being spoiled if they think the first ammendment applies to them. Instead, we should take it like true Americans, turn over, and let censorship have its way with us. I mean, really, what the heck are people thinking? The law applies to everybody? Go cry in the corner alone, you spoiled little miscreant. :


First of, the first amendment has little bearing in a school environment anyways. School staff have the right to punish you for stuff you say--I got written up plenty myself for things I shouldn't have said. It was in the rule books that I couldn't say certain stuff, I broke those rules, and I got punished for it. The school decided that actions similar to mine were not appropriate in an educational environment, and the situations were handled as necessary.

Likewise, this school has decided that the childs choice of a song was inappropriate and prevented her from singing it. There was no legal action taken, she wasn't expelled, from my understanding all she got was a "no, don't sing that." If the school board doesn't want to be associated with any religion, that's their perogative and the parents can take it up with the board as they see fit.



So, that freedom of religion clause in the first ammendment only applies to those who do not want the freedom. Check.


Just because you have the right to worship whomever you want doesn't mean you have the right to use an event I manage to preach your beliefs. I have every right to tell you I don't want you performing your spiel at my show. You can sit outside and protest, but the minute you walk to the stage I can tell you whether or not I'm going to let you perform. If you force your performance, then to steal a quote from you the "law's on my side."



We learned that if the school is teaching something we disagree with, it is extremely offensive and should not be allowed.


No, because every school I've been to has taught about Christianity. They've taught about Islam. They've taught about every major religion and many minor ones. They aren't teaching that we should worship Christ or Allah or Big Dave the Almighty. They're teaching the history of various cultures.

As for the rest of your post dealing with the subjects being taught, that should be an entirely different argument. This is about what goes on at a particular extra-curricular activity, not the actual material being taught.



So there it is. Singing Christian music warrents absloutly no talent, Christians need to shut up and stop thinking the law applies to them, and school has to be banned.


Again, singing popular music in general doesn't take much talent compared to other forms of music. The fact that it's Christian has no bearing on the talent required, just whether or not it should be affiliated with a public school. Hell, the music I do doesn't require any talent for that matter, just knowing how to work a computer and a keyboard.



We learned a lot today!


Not really.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
First of, the first amendment has little bearing in a school environment anyways.


McConnell v. FEC's decision says otherwise. But again, I'm just whining about the law applying here, spoiled little brat that I am.

I did find it interesting that all popular music lacks talent. Odd that some are successful (beyond the boy bands created as marketing schemes), and some aren't. I can see how playing the piano takes a lot of talent, whereas playing a guitar is as easy as drinking from a glass. Doing the percussion from the 1812 overture is extremely difficult, while the percussion for Born To Run is a piece of cake.

There was no legal action taken? I'm glad to see you did your research, but I beg to differ, as does the ACLU:
www.aclu-nj.org...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
JJ, did you ever go to a Public School? The Laws DO NOT APPLY! I can't bring a gun to school even though the Law, the 2nd Amendment, supports me. I can't Bust out with Eminem My B***$ or @** Like That without being punished, I can't tell the teacher to F off without being punished, trust me, tried it, didn't fly.

In school the Law does not apply! School rules apply, in the outside world you can wear a tank top or short shorts, in school you can't, why? Because the school makes the rules!



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The supreme court says otherwise, as I posted in that McConnell v. FEC link.

And yeah, I did go to public school. Got suspended for having a petition to allow petitioning. When it was revealed to the school that some groups are encouraged by the administration to petition without prior permission, but others discouraged and a lawsuit was threatened, the suspension was ended a little short. I fought for my rights in high school, too.

EDIT: Oh, right, and that link to the ACLU's case right above your post, too. That says otherwise, too.

[edit on 10-26-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Well, first off, TrueLies resurrected this guy from the dead; I posted it in May. Second, I reread the post just to be sure, and I never said anything about something being conservative or liberal in this thread. Third, this was not the school saying the song had to be sung. This was a little girl who wanted to sing a song she loves just like the other kids got to. However, because her song wasn't about how to go down on someone, how to be easy, or loaded with some other sexual innuendo, but instead went into the offensive, namely addressing God, she was denied her first amendment rights. Fourth, The school doesn't have a problem with school-supported education on pagan rituals, but mention Christianity, and you get silenced.

So, to recap, I was talking about the hypocrisy, how some religions get to be represented and others don't, and I was addressing the annulment of this child's first amendment rights to both free speech and freedom of religion. The girl is not allowed to have a faith, to express her religion as the Constitution of the United States stipulates because some school superintendent deemed the first amendment null and void?

It's one thing to say that the school shouldn't have teachers talking about their religion and supporting whatever. It is a whole different matter when the schools censor students from practicing or talking about their religion. And you know what? The law agrees with me.


You know NOTHING of Pagan beliefs, literature, or rituals. This is typical Christian ignorance.

First noff, Macbeth is NOT a Pagan religous work. It is a Shakespere classic. The "rituals" in the play are not what you would find in any Pagan circle. Macbeth features both Pagan and Christian elements. But the play is NOT a religious work. It is a classic written by a man for pure entertainment and literary purposes.

This little girl was singing a song that was written BY Christians, for the purposes of religous service, religous praise. Its a strictly Christian song with no real literary value outside the church.

If she wants to sing Christian songs, let her go to church. Otherwise, keep preaching out of the schools.

And in the meantime, try and actually learn the context of classic literature before you label it as Pagan religous teachings. Thats something that makes Christians less than liked: overreaction and panic to the dumbest things borne out of total ignorance of what they condemn.

And for the record, Im Pagan, and I object to any religous content in school, including my own. Religon is a personal thing, and should not be imposed on others.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
It kind of says there should be no one religion in the constitution so, I would say that it should be okay to sing that song as long as it does not promote one religion.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
It kind of says there should be no one religion in the constitution so, I would say that it should be okay to sing that song as long as it does not promote one religion.


Er...Where?

Also, the song is blatantly Christian. It has a line, "The mercy and grace He gave us at the cross", so there's no question which God the girl would be talking about. Does that suddenly make it unacceptable to share with people?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Whaaa prety much says it for many. It is understandable that fundamentalists christians want their dogma taught and exposed in schools. People who are unsure of their position always want verification, even if they have to force it upon innocent people.
Understandable but unacceptable. If you must sing praises and cower brefore your imagined deity...do so but leave the rest of us alone. If you began respecting the privacy of strangers you would be much less tiersome.
skep



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by skep
Whaaa prety much says it for many. It is understandable that fundamentalists christians want their dogma taught and exposed in schools. People who are unsure of their position always want verification, even if they have to force it upon innocent people.
Understandable but unacceptable. If you must sing praises and cower brefore your imagined deity...do so but leave the rest of us alone. If you began respecting the privacy of strangers you would be much less tiersome.
skep



Hehe am I to understand you correctly in seeing this as a, "it's good for me, but not for you" argument? You don't believe what I do, and you want only your perspective taught. I believe what I do, and want my perspective taught alongside the other perspective. Why is my position unacceptable, but your position of forcing one stance while censoring the other is considered acceptable? I guess I should keep my opinion to myself and let yours be the only position that is allowed to be exposed to the public (all of whom, I assume, you know personally) so as to continue to respect the privacy of strangers?

If my wanting equal footing makes me tiresome, what does that make you, ipso facto, for wanting to have unilateral footing?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake


If my wanting equal footing makes me tiresome, what does that make you, ipso facto, for wanting to have unilateral footing?



JJ,
Should the damn druids, santeria, wiccans, voodoo priests, zionists, idol worshipers, vedic adherents, snake handlers, buddists, jains, muslims, Jews, wirlling dervishes all have equal footing? If so this would put the kibash on any real education taking place.

I don't think you want equal footing; you want preferential treatment.

I don't want my kids in school to be exposed to some yahoo singing the praises Krishna, Jose Cuervo, or Saddivatva.

I have no problem with Christian Hymns, but some parents may not want their kids exposed to a religion they find offensive.

In a private school they can sing praises to satan himself if they want but in public school, no way, as long as my taxes are paying the bills.

Church and private homes are the proper place for singing praises to our Lord.

Peace on Earth, Good will to men







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join