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.

 

Prayer Currently Deemed Illegal in BOE Meetings

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Could you explain the color blue to a blind man?




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Where is anyone forced to participate?

Am I forced to listen to the atheist prayers? You dang right.
They enjoy forcing a million of their theories down the throats of people everyday.
Do you see the courts or anyone doing anything about that?

Of course not. Atheism is a religion. It seems to be the only one protected by the government, IMO.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by racasan
 


Where is anyone forced to participate?


Read the article. Anyone attending the meeting was forced to parcipate in the opening prayer.


Am I forced to listen to the atheist prayers? You dang right.


Recite one for us.


They enjoy forcing a million of their theories down the throats of people everyday.
Do you see the courts or anyone doing anything about that?


Theories = prayers?


Of course not. Atheism is a religion. It seems to be the only one protected by the government, IMO.


Words you need to look up in order to engage in an informed conversation on such a topic would include but are not limited to

Atheism
Religion
Prayer
Theory

Good luck.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Global Warming religion, if you do not believe, they will kill you because you are a heretic. Haven't seen the 10-10-10 video? You atheist and Gaia worshippers are some of the sickest religious freaks around.

But hey, you can say the atheists are not a religion, but endorsing the murder of people for their faith, hmmmm puts the atheists out there on par with the other religion of peace. But hey, keep imagining that the worship of the Earth or worship of the government is not a religion, oh well.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


What goes on in the head of a person that conflates global warming and Atheism? I do not understand that mental leap one bit. Basically you claim one thing about one group and then bash a totally different group to align the two? Are your posts supposed to be sattire?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Hey Mods, I really, really, really want the ignore feature back.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Re Freedish

You wrote:

["Could you explain the color blue to a blind man?"]

No problems, but it's impossible to make him experience it.

But I guess you mean to imply, that your doctrines have given you the gift of clear-sightedness. If you against my expectations do have some direct religious experiences, where YOU have 'seen', threads on such will possibly emerge, where you can tell about it; allegorically or not.

Is your rhetoric question an explanation or justification of prayers at school-board meetings? In that case, please enlighten us.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Hey Mods, I really, really, really want the ignore feature back.



You seem really confused. Quoting the last post.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



This is a discussion forum and I would suggest if some random girl online posing questions and counter arguments is too much for some people to handle, then an online forum may not be for them.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Re Saltheart Foamfollower

You wrote:

["Am I forced to listen to the atheist prayers?"]

Atheist prayers like this one?:

"Oh dear non-Lord, whom I non-praying pray to in spite of your non-existence and my non-belief and non-interest in you. Please authorize me to at the next school-board meeting to lead all the brethren and sistren in a non-praying prayer like this one, and if anyone refuses to join, please also help me to stuff it down their throats"

Quote: ["Atheism is a religion."]

The subject has already been aired a few times, with requests to you of an explanation on this peculiar semantic fabrication. To refresh your memory: Is disbelief in Santa Claus actually a worldview, which some people organize into asantaclaus'ism in an active way. Or do they just brush off Santa Claus without any further ado?

Personally I'm as a-doctrinal as I can be. Does that make me doctrinal, concerning doctrines as a general concept, or just some doctrines?

A-social people, are they basically social, or just somebody who ignore social ethics?

I can only repeat an advice from a former post: Knowledge of how to use language properly (semantics) can never be a bad thing.


edit on 16-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




Wow, when did the Department of Education begin? Any idea? When I say STATE, I am referring to the federal government. When I say Republic, I am referring to the 50 Individual Republics.


See, if you use words differently than anyone else and don't explain yourself, then no-one will understand you, and your comments are nothing more than blowing smoke up the south end of a north bound horse.

If you mean "Federal Government", why don't you say "Federal Government"? If there are too many letters in the words "Federal Government" then you can just use 'Feds'.

Why would you be so purposely obscure? Just so you can come back at me and tell me I'm wrong? Well you can GFY for that, I am going to use normal terminology.



I notice you and a couple others really have this holier than thou attitude, an almost elitist mentality where you speak down to people with disdain. Let me tell you, I do not look down on you, but I do feel disdain.


Using words differently than anyone else, for the sole purpose of ensuring your readers will misunderstand what you think you are saying, so you can attack them for that misunderstanding is the epitome of aggressive elitism. You really should have a good long look in the mirror.



The STATE took over the direction of the school curriculum and direction back about the 70's. Before than it was always controlled by the individual Republics. These schools were ran by the Republics and their individual Constitutions were the laws of the day.


That is simply not true. The States control the curriculum within their states and always have. There are non-Governmental associations that 'certify' the general curriculum and individual schools performance for adherence to standards to ensure that students will meet the educational standards of the Universities across member states. This is a voluntary certification program and the member States and schools pay to join the regional associations. This has been going on forever, and the Feds don't have anything to do with it.

The only control the Feds have over curriculum is when it offers money to support particular programs it sees as important to the welfare of the nation as a whole. If the States don't want Federal money, then they don't have to run that program. There may be various Federally mandated programs mostly dealing with solving civil rights issues, like segregation, or children with disabilities access to the classroom, which again the Feds support monetarily. In general however, the DoE does not have anything what-so-ever with curriculum.



If you did not know, the US Constitution mandates that all individual states have to be set up as Republics. They can have individual Constitutions that can vary as the individual Republics see fit, as long as no tenets are broken of the US Constitution.


Yes, and your point is? All 50 States have a republican government; none of the 50 States have a Monarch, nor a Theocracy; there is no possibility of such a thing happening (though many people would clearly like to set up Theocracies).

This is the only provision of the Constitution that you seem to have any fondness for, to the point of inventing your own terminology to emphasize it, and yet it is probably the one provision in the entire Constitution that is least under threat.



So what do we have, the STATE mandating things to the Republics, where it has NO AUTHORITY.


Exactly what is the Federal Government mandating to the States? Please provide an example and proof of Federal interference.



See the Republics were supposed to be independent of the STATE.


Independent in what way? The Constitution, clearly describes interdependence between the States and the Federal Government; allocating responsibilities between the two.



This way all kinds of varying ideas and thought could be explored. But the STATE does not like this so they begin to mandate that everyone is to be the same. Kinda like our schools.


The Federal Department of Education does not mandate that everyone is to be the same. They do encourage minimum standards for schools nationwide.

From the DoE web site (What We Do):



The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. It engages in four major types of activities:

1. Establishes policies related to federal education funding, administers distribution of funds and monitors their use.
2. Collects data and oversees research on America's schools.
3. Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
4. Enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds.




Tell me, how is that working out for our children? What, we are the last in almost all categories compared to the top countries.


True. And when I was in school, we at the top in almost all categories. It is not the Federal government to blame for the decline in education. It is the direct consequence of stripping funding from schools by the States. My home State, Arizona, once had one of the best State education systems in the country, now it is near the bottom.

The immediate cause? The selfish decision to eliminate property taxes which funded the State School system without replacing the funding source. So the schools had to compete for a slice of the general revenue in the State budget. There is just no way the schools could not suffer from this.

This catastrophe had absolutely zero to do with the Federal Department of Education, and everything to do with selfish, simple minded people that can think no further than their next holiday in Bermuda, and ideologues that think it is a reasonable thing to do to destroy the specific thing that made America great, its education system, in order to make a political point.



Do you see any relevance there?


Relevance to what? The thread topic? Nope.



You know, the STATE mandating all these blanket things to all the REPUBLICS.


I'll just repeat my request for you to cite examples of such blanket mandates that you find objectionable and outside the authority of the Feds.



Anyway, since you are one of them type, I am not going to discuss things with you any longer. You have this weird way of just irking me. Sometimes you are rational, but sometimes..................


"Them type"?



If you could not understand what I was saying about public control of the schools and the separation clause you
brought up, I guess that attitude of yours, should change. It was obvious to everyone else I have brought this argument forth to.


"Obvious"? When you use words in nonstandard ways? You really have some ego to think that just because you are being ignored by others that they understand and agree with your point. I don't think you made any valid point about public control of the schools and the separation clause, and certainly none that was on topic for this thread.

For the record, I do understand your points, I find them wrong, both factually and intellectually, and off topic, but I understand them.



So run along and jump into an echo chamber.


It is clear from your adverse reaction to hearing stuff that doesn't match your world view, that echo chambers are your favorite hang out, not mine..
edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


YOU are the one that brought up the separation clause of the Church and STATE and your entire comment does not address the basic tenet of my argument.

How typically Howard Dean Pivot maneuver of you.

You originally pointed out your separation clause and I utterly destroyed it by pointing out that the STATE has no authority in the schools.

This is what I was referring to when I said THEM. One that cannot admit their ideological defeat.

Once again address the issue. Point to the US Constitution where the STATE has the authority to mandate ANYTHING within a school. Therefore, since you cannot, the relevance of the separation clause is moot.

Hmmmmm?

Game, Set, Match



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 





Once again address the issue. Point to the US Constitution where the STATE has the authority to mandate ANYTHING within a school. Therefore, since you cannot, the relevance of the separation clause is moot.


Please point to something that you think the Federal Government is mandating in a school, and I will attempt to point to the Constitutional authority or demonstrate why it is not a Federal mandate.

If I can do neither, I will readily admit that I cannot. Will you likewise admit you are wrong if I can? Your history suggests otherwise, even in just this thread. This thread has nothing to do with Federal mandates in schools, yet you insist on trying to discuss it, and offer no example of such offensive mandate.

The only thing I mentioned relating to any kind of separation clause is the separation of Church and State (where this use of the word "State" means "government at any level") with respect to "Official Prayers" and "Official Government Business Meetings". That this particular government business meeting was a School Board Meeting was incidental, not defining. That is what the thread is about, an article discussing the alleged consequences of enforcing that separation.

I made no claim about separation of Federal Government and Education, you did. The Constitution does not, in fact, specifically mention education or schools, of course. This can be interpreted two ways: 1) that providing education is a 'power' reserved to the states or the people by the 10th amendment, or 2) that providing education is a fundamental purpose of government in general and is one of the reasons that the Constitution was 'ordained and established', as described in the Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,"

If you accept interpretation number 2, education is not a 'power' to be reserved to one level or the other, it is a 'basic function' of a civilized society. Governments at all levels, Federal, State, and Local have a vested interest and a public responsibility in getting it right.

All that aside, the Federal DoE charter assumes interpretation number 1, and happily defers control of public education to the States (members of the Union).

Once again, I point you to the Federal DoE Website for clarification:


Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels. So, if you have a question about a policy or issue, you may want to check with the relevant organization in your state or school district.



I repeat my challenge: identify any Federal mandated education program you believe is an unconstitutional breach of the 10th amendment, or any other Constitutional provision for that matter.



edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: grammar

edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: clarification

edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: link to DoE web site

edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Re Rnaa

Sorry to interupt, but I would like to draw attention to the obvious fact, that Saltheart Foamfollower is using a classical theist deflectionary tactic, so the thread can be derailed from the inconvenient and embarrasing topic of the OP.

This is not to belittle your attitude and knowledge, you have my respect for those.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by racasan
 


Where is anyone forced to participate?


if before the BOE meeting can start people have to sit through a prayer meeting then yes


Am I forced to listen to the atheist prayers? You dang right.
They enjoy forcing a million of their theories down the throats of people everyday.
Do you see the courts or anyone doing anything about that?

Of course not. Atheism is a religion. It seems to be the only one protected by the government, IMO.


i cannot work out if your having a laugh here or if your serious, could you give an example of what you mean


I was looking at your:
Natural Law do no harm to other and do not infringe on their rights

now bearing this in mind, what about the suggestion of
prayer meeting at 19:50
BOE meeting at 20:00



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hey, I just got into this thread because of the separation of Church and STATE issue.

Do not like it, tough.

God Bless and Peace.

Oooops, this isn't a government related endeavor is it? Oh good, thought I was going to get slapped with some thought crime or something.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Kinda both. As someone said at a Golden Globe award closing.

Thank God I am an atheist.





posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Re Saltheart Foamfollower

You wrote:

["Oooops, this isn't a government related endeavor is it? Oh good, thought I was going to get slapped with some thought crime or something"]

No, you're going to be slapped with/for rhetoric.

Ofcourse the existence of secular, liberal and egalitarian society has very much to do with the topic; secular society (etc) is a central issue, which you address by questioning the basic values of it. Such a questioning is ofcourse fair enough, if the parameters of the implied criticism in your approach actually relates to anything rational, sensible, relevant, credible, evidenced, supported, explained ......

......AND if you'd kept it somehow turning around the main-issue.

Instead you have separated a debate of secular society into an isolated sub-issue, which you attack by postulates and plain propaganda-clichées with zero debate credibility and very little importance to the original main-issue.

Examples:

Quote: ["You atheist and Gaia worshippers are some of the sickest religious freaks around."]

How and why are atheists and Gaia worshippers categorized together? How are atheists classified as 'religious'? On what grounds are atheists and Gaia-worshippers 'sick freaks'?

Quote: ["But hey, you can say the atheists are not a religion, but endorsing the murder of people for their faith, hmmmm puts the atheists out there on par with the other religion of peace. But hey, keep imagining that the worship of the Earth or worship of the government is not a religion, oh well."]

When has atheism, in the form of an organized expression of atheist ideology PER SE (as a minor or major manifestation of the general concept 'atheism' or 'atheists') endorsed murder of 'people for their faith'? (And no, political or other ideologies including atheism in their systems are NOT spokesmen for atheism. This rhetoric emergency exit is often used).

When have 'other religions of peace' endorsed such murder on a social scale? (By the way, you give the impression, that you disagree with idea of religions of peace. Do you prefer religions of war instead, like e.g. 'christian soldiers' and similar?).

As above you make peculiar sweeping generalizations by categorizing Gaia-worshippers together with postulated 'worshippers of government', and from that drawing absurd conclusions. What has Gaia to do with government?

Quote: ["They enjoy forcing a million of their theories down the throats of people everyday.
Do you see the courts or anyone doing anything about that?"]

What 'million of theories' are you referring to? And how is this million of theories 'forced' on people? Why should courts do anything about a problem, which mainly exists in your head? Reference points please.

Quote: ["Of course not. Atheism is a religion. It seems to be the only one protected by the government, IMO."]

Apart from your repetitive insistence on atheism being a religion, I think it would demonstrate something about your knowledge of, understanding of and attitude to secular society, if you (relating to topic) define the principles of secular, liberal and egalitarian society and then from there explain/justify the mysterious postulate 'atheism.......the only one protected by government'.

Quote: ["I think it should be a crime for religion to not be allowed everywhere."]

Sure. So tantric sex and goat-sacrificing should be allowed 'everywhere' (where's 'everywhere' by the way? Is 'everywhere' also in my house, a buddhist center, a foot-fetichist convention or in the abstract area of redefining science's premises and parameters, so they fit with pre-determined, doctrinal and absolute theist answers?)

Personally I doubt your ability to respond to this post except in terms of your own mindset and doctrines. But please surprise me and use a common communication-basis and communication-methodology, going beyond postulates.

And if you think, that this is a too superficial epistemological request, I'm game for deeper evaluations of what's 'evidence' and how it can be communicated.

[
edit on 17-1-2011 by bogomil because: spellíng and syntax



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Stalin was an atheist and ran a pretty tight ship, he just banned most religions and sent the practishoners to syberia. When did freedom of religion turn into this?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Alrighty, someone with some gusto that recognized my arguments.

Give me a second or two to get things together.

How bout starting a new thread, basically debating the argument that I set forth earlier.

Give me an idea or format for your argument or debate style you would like to implement.

Ready, willing and ABLE.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



Ready, willing and ABLE.


Unlike your GOD! ("The Problem of Evil" - Epicurus)

Sorry, i couldn't resist - sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit.

I'd be quite willing to debate with you in regards to the God question. Be interesting to read your philosophical/logical points in regards to that question. Drop me a U2U if you start up a thread, or feel free to join one of my existing posts.


edit on 18/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join