It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:59 PM
What about parents who are upset and offended with the religion of atheism being taught in our schools exclusively? Sure, we can call them names, but does that allow us to dismiss the hypocrisy? Why is it that atheism is the only sponsored religion this nation is allowed to have, and to suggest otherwise makes one a tiresome privacy invader?

You're wrong, in this instance, about me wanting a preferential footing for Christianity. If a student wanted to sing a wikken song, or an Islamic song, or any other religious song, that student should be allowed to do so. It is only the ignorant who have to hide from other opinions to maintain their own. I intend to expose my children to more than just a Christian world view. I won't have much choice, considering schools and the media today. I will also proceed to teach them why that opinion is wrong. You know, equip them to defend their point of view instead of having to run from a conversation where their point of view is challenged, or else start hurling insults.

This is America; let's stop pretending we adhere to the first amendment and start to adhere to the first amendment.

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:02 PM
Freedom of Speech is a good thing, but at the same time, Seperation of Church & State is also good.

Freedom of Speech was so people could speak their mind, without fear of the Government hanging them, or killing them some other way.

Seperation of Church & State, was written, so the Pope, or whatever other Church in power, couldn't influence the Nation as easily as they did in Europe. In Europe, the Pope had/has more power than some Nations leaders.

If the little girl had picked something that wasn't quite so out there about God or church, she might have gotten to sing her song. Doesn't matter to Me, but I say Freedom of Speech outweighs Seperation of Church & State.

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
You're wrong, in this instance, about me wanting a preferential footing for Christianity. If a student wanted to sing a wikken song, or an Islamic song, or any other religious song, that student should be allowed to do so.

I don't believe you are being honest here, and even if you are, I am fairly certain that most Christians would be up in arms if equal time were given to someone who worshiped Satan, for example. Maybe you are enlightened enough to understand the principle behind such equality, but that would palce you in a very small minority of Christians. I know most Christians aren't that tolorant. Perhaps you don't want a preferential foothold for your particular brand of dogma, but I assure you, there are many, many Christians who do. Proof of this is the current and various debates about Creationism vs. Evolution. I don't see anyone pressing for the Hindu, Buddist, or Gnostic creation myths to be taught in schools and most Christians would be horrified and incensed if they were.

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:26 AM
I am being honest, because I added that qualifier. In this instance, I believe in equal footing. If a child wanted to sing a song from another religion, they have every right to, according to that little document we call the Constitution Of The United States Of America.

However, when it comes to in-school (remember, this was an out of school event the school hosted) issues, I don't support equal footing. I support representative footing. If a large minority or majority of the population in an area wants to have a viewpoint represented in their schools, they should have it. If that means, in largely Islamic segments of America, that principles and origins of Islam are taught in school and nothing Christian is taught, coolsville. We live in a representative democracy, and the government is supposed to reflect the population. Schools are a form of local government, and they should reflect the local population in what they teach and represent, not what the loudest in the nation or the lobbyist with the most money says the local community can't learn.

Finally, if I want my local school to teach something like ID, and no one else in my community wants the same thing, fine. I have two choices, either accept that and teach my children on my own, or move. I'm the extreme minority, and I have no right in this nation to force the majority to conform to my will. That's not what this country is supposed to stand for.

Now, before you ask what the minority breaking point is, at what percentage do you start to say, "no, we aren't going to teach that" is, I don't know. No community, so far as I know, supports this Representative democratic method to religion in public schools because...Well, a minority has taken control of what is allowed in our schools. There are some details that would have to be worked out. However, I think that, as a representative democracy with individual state and town governments governed by the same means, representing the community would be most representative of our style of government.

Think of it from this perspective. If your whole community wanted evolution to be taught in school, but the nation decided that only intelligent design should be taught, is your school, teaching only your local community's children, fairly representing the people it serves? Is that right in a diverse society ruled by a representative democracy, or should the community be able to say that evolution be taught as well?

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
I am being honest, because I added that qualifier. In this instance, I believe in equal footing. If a child wanted to sing a song from another religion, they have every right to, according to that little document we call the Constitution Of The United States Of America.

Yes, you did add the qualifier, so I'll retract that part of my statement. I stand corrected on the matter of your honesty.

As for the rest, however. Restrictions such as these are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The cutoff point and where it should be can be argued about and probably will be argued about from here to the end of the world.

The best solution to this is to remove the arguement completely by removing the question of who's religion gets more "airtime". Having no religious "airtime" at all for anyone makes the question of who gets more a moot discussion at best and lets the children get back to what they should be doing (and what I'm forced to pay my tax dollars for them to do), which is learning to read, write and prepare for the time when they are free to have whatever religious discussions that they want, when they want, and pretty much where they want.

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:04 AM
I would agree with you, except for the stance popular science has taken on religion since Darwin. Since we define religion as the worship of a higher being, science is allowed to discredit God in the classroom without violating this separation of church and state our country now stands by. However, in reality, denying God is the same, ideologically speaking, as admitting God. Your proposition would, in my opinion, optimize science and take the politics out of it, but I don't see it as happening. I, personally, would think that would be awesome. I don't know if you know of the Teaching Company, but they offer lectures on just about everything. Recently I listened to some lectures on quantum physics that were riveting. Totally scientifically oriented, and I highly recommend them. I also listened to some lectures on particle physics, though. That professor, in a very forced manner, managed to work not only politics into his lectures, but atheism as well. He was teaching, through particle physics, a religion.

If we could teach without ulterior motives becoming an issue in a totally a-religious sense, I would be all for it. However, it is not possible. A religion, be it atheism, Christianity or worship of the Great Green Arkleseizure, is going to be represented by the thinking, believing human presenting the lesson. Yet, people can't. We work our beliefs into everything we do.

At the same time, I see a major problem with my solution that would have to be addressed. What constitutes a minority that deserves to be represented? If we have a cutoff point for opinions, we'll have an issue along the lines of "third" party candidates running for office. Personally, I'd prefer a South African style ticket over America's; that way we wouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, we could choose the greater good. There are definitely issues that would have to be worked out in what I presented. I admit that. However, the system we have now we are accepting without addressing any misrepresentation issues, and we're told to accept it unilaterally. I don't. Elective classes, even, would be better than what we have.

Again, another example. You believe in evolution (I'm using evolution as an example because most folks believe it as fact, though a contingent of Christians don't). The teacher is teaching intelligent design, as the state requires, when you ask about something the state has condemned as something that cannot be discussed in public schools. The teacher looks at you, gives you a condescending smile, then continues to teach about intelligent design. What does that tell you, as a young student, about evolution? That teacher just dismissed your belief as pure stupidity that they felt responsible to educate you on.

Is that not teaching a specific viewpoint while ignoring and even rejecting another? You can have freedom of religion, but the state is going to actively convince your children that your religion is wrong unless you have enough money to send your child to a private school? Does that mean that freedom of religion is only for the rich?

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:20 AM
Granted, it has been some time since I was taught science in school, but I don't recall anywhere that it was taught that God doesn't exist. Atheism isn't being taught, the scientific method is, which at the heart of it's methodolgy only deals in observable, repeatable, quantifiable phenomina and the theories that can be based on such. Scientific method can be readily applied to anything that exists in the physical realm, anything that is rational. There are plenty of schools that don't teach this. They are called chruches and for every school that teaches science there are probably at least 10 churches that are teaching what cannot and should not be addressed by science.

If God exists or not, there is no way to construct experiments to prove or disprove it. There is nothing we can point to and say it is repeatable, observable proof that God is. God cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula or equation for us to examine and test since belief in God rests entirely within the mind, the contents of which cannot be touched, examined or observed. Even those sciences that deal with the mind can only address the mind once thought is translated into some physical action, described by the entity thinking it, or in some other way is moved into an area where the results of it, not the thought itself can be examined.

Teaching the scientific method, then turning around and breaking it's rules of methodolgy by addressing matters it cannot be applied to sends mixed signals and defeats the purpose of teaching it.

Schools are for everybody. What is taught there should be applicable to everybody. Schools are scientific methodology expanded to address a wide variety of subjects that students will have to deal with in the real physical world. Perhaps people go overboard and restrict things too much but it is in response to those who ignore these principles and insist upon trying to use schools as religious indoctrination centers. Though you, JJ may not be in favor of doing that, you cannot deny that many of your fellow Christians are.

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:15 AM
i think JJ just has a problem with the seperation clause in the first amendment, either with understanding it, knowing it exists, or in not wanting it to exist.

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by junglejake

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.

I would agree in this instance. Why can't the free market decide? If people decide they don't want to listen or are offended by this song then her peers can boo her out of the building. Like every other musical act ever performed let the audience decide if they want to continue listening or not.

In regards to some of the other issues brought up in this thread, I would agree and have puched for a general Theology class in my school and others. But the school should not support the preaching of one belief over another. Kids wearing religious clothing/jewelry? Fine. Maybe it will start a new fad in schools. As long as they do not force their religion on others and respect the free will of those around them to believe what they want i have no problem with religious expression.

The problem that I have experienced is that many christians have become hypocritical in there beliefs, teachings, and actions. Jesus and the Bible preach tolerance, forgiveness, redemption, and free will of man. Yet the same people fighting for the bible are the ones constantly fighting over having their beliefs pushed to the forefront of society, and condemning all others. THEY are the ones that were pushing for Tookie's execution. THEY are the ones trying to get abortion banned in all forms(and killing people and bombing clinics in some cases). THEY want to have ID taught in science classes when the only evidence they can present is evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION, not for ID. THEY openly pray for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices who don't support their agenda. In general, they attempt to force their beliefs on others in a way that other religions don't.

And just to clarify I am not pagan or atheist. I was raised Catholic. I attended church and Religious Education classes. But(it may be different in other churches) the more I heard the more I came to recognize the hypocracy of their teachings. I am now a Unitarian Universalist because I still believe in the concept and right to individual free will. In my experiences though most Christians have forgotten what was one of Jesus' most important lessons.

And before I get ripped for this, I am not completely against ID. I do think that some of the questions and criticisms of the Evolution theory can be taught in science classes. I would support ID being taught as a possibility in a Theology class. But I have studied ID, evolution, and panspermian theory for about a year now learning about them, and I can not find a basis for which ID can legitamately pass through the Scientific Method, which is essential in my opinion to it being taught in a science class. If I can be proven wrong on that statement I welcome it. But evidence against evolution is not the same as evidence for ID. I think it's important for scientists to recognize the holes in the evolution theory, but christians need to recognize that evolution right now is the most scientifically viable theory we have.

And I was just in high school not to long ago and no, the Bill of Rights do not apply in schools. You can't say whatever you want(1st Amendment), carry weapons (2nd). You can have your lockers/cars/computer files searched at any time(4th). You can be forced to incriminate yourself(5th), no defense counsel(6th) or trial by jury(7th). I would say permanent banishment for showing up drunk to school is excessive and cruel(8th). Schools seem to have the right to pick and choose which parts and to what extent they adhere to the bill of right. Not right in my opinion but it's fact.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in