Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


meh, the Atheists don't mind telling people they can't celebrate their Christmas traditions, so screw em!!

See how that works?

When you start bitchin about how other people live, don't belly ache and whine when things don't go your way!

Besides, if they don't believe in God, then what's the big deal?

Say it, get your diploma and be on with life......

Edit: I don't believe in the God of Abraham, but my point is that I am sick and tired of other people telling others how to live!

Do I see the Athiests complain about God being on the money they spend????

As to you OP! You have been quite vocal about taking away peoples second ammendment rights in my country, and I find the hypocracy of your post simply amazing!
edit on 27-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


You got starred for the comment about money. My first thought (as a person who leans towards atheism btw) is if the religious atheists (I say religious because they have turned it into a religion of its own) are so solid in their convictions that they would not accept a diploma because of saying the word God, then any of them who spend a dollar are nothing but spineless hypocrites.

The first amendment in no way, shape, or form protects anyone from being subjected to religion. On the contrary, it protect the right of everyone to practice religion. I don't know where the atheist community has gotten the idea that the 1st Amendment protects them from having to see any signs of religion, that is absurd, and ignorant at best. It makes me a little ashamed to say that I am atheist.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


R is the main threat to all of us everywhere!
We wont fix society and have a peaceful world whilst we have R division!!
The longterm future will be one without R!
Peaceful life will come when R is gone!


Yeah you know the World will just be so much better when we only have one view of everything and all else is suppressed.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by GRS1234
 


Your wording is very confusing. Are you trying to turn this into a conversation about the existence of God? Because that is a completely different topic. The op is trying to bring up the whole separation of church and state thing with this oath. But he is missing the forest for the trees when the real problem is making kids swear an oath of allegiance to the country just to obtain a diploma.


I don't really give a good steaming crap about the God part but why is it a problem to have kids swear an oath to the country who is giving them the diploma? If you would just as soon spit on the flag as recite an oath to the country then why should you be given an education. There are private schools out there that I am sure don't require an oath to the U.S. to get your diploma, they are free to pay the tuition and go there.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
Are the lawmakers in the correct position by requiring this? No. Is anyone hurt by this? The article would believe you to think so, but no.

A creationist will have to lie on his or her biology test in order to graduate, but it is still so. An atheist has to lie in order to graduate... big deal.

I also wonder, when is it such a big deal for atheist to lie? They aren't held accountable by any higher power, so what difference does it make?


As an agnostic who leans towards atheism I have to say that not believing in a big guy floating out beyond space and time does not mean that I don't have to answer for my actions, and words. I answer to my own honor which I hold above any God be it a real or imagined one.

That being said I think you make a great point. If a religious student gives their honest opinion about evolution on a biology test then they will fail that test and possibly no get their diploma. At very least the poor grade will affect their entry into universities.

As long we find it acceptable for those students to lie on tests (or at least lie as far as their belief goes) then why is it such an outrage for the atheist students to be doing the same?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticagnostic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

my problem with this isn't that it states at the end "so help me god" but that you would have to swear some kind of oath at all... really?? because i graduate in the united states i'm now swearing some kind of oath to the country? what about those foriegn exchange students who graduate here? plenty of illegal children too... (just sayin)o. I graduated from college without having to swear on oath to my country... what is this all about?.. i don't get it seems a little hail hitlerish to me.


Was the University that you went to free (well, free as in American tax payer money)? If those foreign exchange students and illegals, the later of which should not be allowed to enroll in the first place don't want to take an oath to the country providing the education for them then they are free to seek a private education.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
When you think about it we might be asking to much. Weve already asked republicans to stop beating their wives and murdering homosexuals. For a century this is alot of progress in human terms.

I think we need to take a step back and look at how far they have already come. If atheist children need to pretend to be religious to make them happy untill after they graduate.... i mean, we should put this in perspective.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Yeah well we had to trade off beating our wives to get the democrats to give up slavery. Oh wait, you are bringing it back with your welfare state, nevermind.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taliesien333
I'm curious about something. All those who have advocated just taking the oath, getting your diploma and moving on, because Atheists don't believe in God, so no harm no foul. What if it said so help me Odin? Would you say it and just move on because you don't believe in Odin?


Religious students do it everyday in science class when they are forced to affirm that evolution is the truth even though they believe it to be a lie.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SixX18
I'm graduated and not from AZ, but are they really trying to tell people they must be a religion. What is next, force you to be in a political party? I am not for or against any religion. In fact I literally don't care whether it is real or not or who is right. But it's absurd to make someone register for religion or you can't graduate high school. We aren't Nazis, we are Americans. What happened to the land of the free?


Can you please point me to the sentence in that oath that forces anyone to register for religion? It is an oath to the country, not to God, and it doesn't specify any God in particular.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq1

Originally posted by Taliesien333
I'm curious about something. All those who have advocated just taking the oath, getting your diploma and moving on, because Atheists don't believe in God, so no harm no foul. What if it said so help me Odin? Would you say it and just move on because you don't believe in Odin?


Religious students do it everyday in science class when they are forced to affirm that evolution is the truth even though they believe it to be a lie.


But affirmation of evolution, where there is proof it is happening (depending on the depth to which one is delving re evolution - - don't read religion into that statement as there's pretty substantial evidence imo for all evolution) is different to being "forced" to affirm a pretending friend that is only based on a "belief". But looking at this thread, I feel that the heading is a tad misleading. In saying that, the concept of denying someone their hard earned qualifications unless they state an oath is a little bit draconian to vay the least
edit on 31-1-2013 by greatfriendbadfoe because: sp



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Religion will be around for maybe 100 years longer.

Hopefully sooner, I can't say I am not surprised by the ignorance shown here.

Whenever you replace critical fact based thinking with denial and faith, you will have idiots.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe

Originally posted by Majiq1

Originally posted by Taliesien333
I'm curious about something. All those who have advocated just taking the oath, getting your diploma and moving on, because Atheists don't believe in God, so no harm no foul. What if it said so help me Odin? Would you say it and just move on because you don't believe in Odin?


Religious students do it everyday in science class when they are forced to affirm that evolution is the truth even though they believe it to be a lie.


But affirmation of evolution, where there is proof it is happening (depending on the depth to which one is delving re evolution - - don't read religion into that statement as there's pretty substantial evidence imo for all evolution) is different to being "forced" to affirm a pretending friend that is only based on a "belief". But looking at this thread, I feel that the heading is a tad misleading. In saying that, the concept of denying someone their hard earned qualifications unless they state an oath is a little bit draconian to vay the least
edit on 31-1-2013 by greatfriendbadfoe because: sp


I agree with you that there is certainly more evidence for evolution than for religion. As I stated before I am not a Christian, nor do I subscribe to any other religions. I think anyone who claims to know what lies beyond death are full of it, and that goes to atheism as well. That being said the theory of evolution has had flaws uncovered over the years and is still in no way considered a scientific fact. So until that time we are in in fact forcing religious students be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever to lie in their opinion in order to pass classes and keep their GPA up.

There is nothing in the oath forcing anyone to accept any religion. It is an oath to the country that is providing that young person with their education. As I also stated if anyone has a problem with an oath to the country then they are welcome to seek a private education.

I am not saying that I believe this oath is a necessity, but I also don't feel that it is asking so much. As far as the "so help me God" part, that is just normal rhetoric that is found in almost all oaths in this country, and if the bill passes which I doubt it will, then I am sure that, like other oaths in this country the last line will be allowed to be omitted.

I just really feel that the people in this thread who are up in arms for the rights of the atheist students would be singing a completely different tune if we were talking about a group of Christians who didn't feel their children should have to take science class in order to get their diplomas.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thommmy
Religion will be around for maybe 100 years longer.

Hopefully sooner, I can't say I am not surprised by the ignorance shown here.

Whenever you replace critical fact based thinking with denial and faith, you will have idiots.


I have some serious issues with organized religion, but to say that something that has been around in one form or another since mans first recorded history will just vanish in a hundred years is as idiotic as those who truly believe in a magical sky daddy.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


The problem is, most of your 'christian traditions' aren't even Christian.

The burning of the log- Yule, Pagan

Effectively, it was the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. They also represented Saturn with yellow discs, we now refer to these as halos.

The Christmas Tree: the evergreen was thought by ancient Druids to be magical, and brought protection if a part of it were brought inside during this time of year

Even gift-giving predates Christianity.

So really, your 'christmas traditions' aren't really christmas at all.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Transitarian
reply to post by seeker1963
 


The problem is, most of your 'christian traditions' aren't even Christian.

The burning of the log- Yule, Pagan

Effectively, it was the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. They also represented Saturn with yellow discs, we now refer to these as halos.

The Christmas Tree: the evergreen was thought by ancient Druids to be magical, and brought protection if a part of it were brought inside during this time of year

Even gift-giving predates Christianity.

So really, your 'christmas traditions' aren't really christmas at all.



That is quite true but not a Christian thing to steal other religions traditions. All new religions steal from the traditional religions that they want to replace. It helps to assimilate the populace.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Transitarian
 


People still practice witch craft, cannibalism and sorts of nutty things. And will do so for many years to come, What has changed is how we perceived these practices on a society level. Religion will be next.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Majiq1
 



Religious students do it everyday in science class when they are forced to affirm that evolution is the truth even though they believe it to be a lie.


Getting an A on the test means you believe in its truth?? Why can't it mean you understand the material intellectually, but don't believe in it.

For instance when I took psychology I ace'd the exams relating to Freud's theories about psychoanalytical psychology....yet I didn't believe in its validity (for the most part).

So again.....how is taking the science class forcing that affirmation? I don't get it....


if the religious atheists (I say religious because they have turned it into a religion of its own) are so solid in their convictions that they would not accept a diploma because of saying the word God, then any of them who spend a dollar are nothing but spineless hypocrites.


I get what you're saying with the "In God We Trust" written on money.

But how is this equivalent?

How is an atheist using that money the same as swearing an oath to God?
edit on 31-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Getting an A on the test means you believe in its truth?? Why can't it mean you understand the material intellectually, but don't believe in it.


And why can't that same principle apply to atheists taking an oath?


How is an atheist using that money the same as swearing an oath to God?


First of all there is no oath to God mentioned anywhere. It is an oath to the United States of America. Can't an atheist understand the oath intellectually, while not believing in the actual existence of a God that can help you if you break it?

How does the money relate? Every time you hand someone a dollar bill you are giving them a note that states that you and others who use that money trust in God. You know that to be false but big deal, gotta pay the bills. It in no way stifles your right to believe or practice anything you like, and it puts no law in place concerning religion, and neither does this oath. If the oath read "You swear to defend God and America" then there would be some 1st amendment issues, but it doesn't say that at all.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Majiq1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2013 by Majiq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

...the 2nd amendment follows a clause in the British Bill of Rights that gives PROTESTANTS the right to bear arms (as opposed to Catholics, what with the religious natuer or war & politics of the time)...


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. The Bill of Rights LIFTED a restriction on Protestants, it didn't give them more rights than Catholics. It actually levelled the playing field, as it were.

The 2A has very little to do with that section of the older BoR. Although they used similar wording, the contexts are very much different and they have a very different intent.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Majiq1
 



And why can't that same principle apply to atheists taking an oath?

Because it completely undermines what an oath represents....

Myself and others gave reason for that earlier.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Well when guns are suddenly items of religion then you know the place has gone to pot, now probably this is why we Brits are happy to have you Americans thousands of miles away as most of the nutters who thought that way went on the sail boats so they're your problems now but given enough time and a strong enough conservative attitude even fire would be considered heretical thought


Wow, first response and its an anti-American rant. Really? Could you have thought of nothing better to contribute to this conversation? Besides, you Brits have got a lot of crazies running around your country. Of course you Brits have always had a snide condescending attitude regarding the US, so I guess this shouldn't surprise me.






top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join