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.

 

Local lawmakers lead push for prayer in schools bill

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Southern Guardian
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


After all of what you typed, you still have not addressed the fundamental question I addressed to you here. What value will this serve in school time?


It has the potential to add a substantial value in school time. As I have posted earlier, I have three boys (8/8/12 years of age) and you would be surprised what a minute at the onslaught of the day can do when I have them focus. I also asked you the same, what is the value served of recess? Why have breaks at all?


This is a simple question that you yourself can't seem to answer.

And you couldn't answer why it is so contentious to have a minute of silence save it is a waste of time. Yet, there is my answer above. Care to answer all my questions now? Or will you just ignore all these and present yet again, more questions. Moving the goal posts doesn't help your argument by the way.


Not much unlike Beezzer who couldn't really explain exactly what kids would be learning during abstinence only classes.


Don't be passive in your slight of hand and your actions -- if you want to call out Beezzer, do it with him, not through a reply to me. That is a shady tactic.




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



ownbestenemy
It has the potential to add a substantial value in school time. As I have posted earlier, I have three boys (8/8/12 years of age) and you would be surprised what a minute at the onslaught of the day can do when I have them focus.


You are aware that kids already have time to "focus" whether it be just before class time or just at the start during roll call. There doesn't need to be another "minute" set aside for them to do this. As for the value this minute of silence will offer, aside from your personal views in the case of your kids (supposedly), you really have nothing.


I also asked you the same, what is the value served of recess? Why have breaks at all?


I already gave you an answer for this. What? Do you think it's ok for kids to sit through 5-7 hours of class straight? Kind of silly right? So it's common sense for them to have a break They need rest, they need to eat so that they can remain focused. And no, they don't need a "minutes silence" at the beginning of class time to be added to this. It works just fine as is.

You know what I'll compromise though. Get them to add another minute to recess for these kids to have their moments of silence. Provide an open class room for those kids to go in if you're really that desperate.


Not much unlike Beezzer who couldn't really explain exactly what kids would be learning during abstinence only classes.

Don't be passive in your slight of hand and your actions -- if you want to call out Beezzer,


If I want to mention another member as an example in my posts, I will do so. Don't like it? You have a choice to leave this debate. Simple.

...and lastly.


I am one of the few here who do not subscribe to partisan hacks


You and everybody else on here apparently ownbestenemy. Frankly I'm not interested in hearing it, you can believe what you want to believe about yourself and your agenda.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
So, all our kids must have the secular atheist values shoved down their throats so the secular atheist children not potentially be "contaminated" by having to sit through 60 seconds of quiet time.

Yes, we can see how this not shoving our morals down your throat thing works because you have no qualms with shoving your morals down ours.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Southern Guardian
You are aware that kids already have time to "focus" whether it be just before class time or just at the start during roll call. There doesn't need to be another "minute" set aside for them to do this. As for the value this minute of silence will offer, aside from your personal views in the case of your kids (supposedly), you really have nothing.


Read below -- a moment of silence is a moment to focus the class; just as recess is to rejuvenate students from the 'rigor' of instruction. What is the difference. You are flailing here.


I already gave you an answer for this. What? Do you think it's ok for kids to sit through 5-7 hours of class straight? Kind of silly right? So it's common sense for them to have a break They need rest, they need to eat so that they can remain focused. And no, they don't need a "minutes silence" at the beginning of class time to be added to this. It works just fine as is.


I never said "minutes", I said minute. It works just fine? How is our system stacking up against the world? Why not try something different? We are somewhere between Armenia and Dubai. Kazakhstan isn't that far behind in some subjects. But it is working "just fine as is."


You know what I'll compromise though. Get them to add another minute to recess for these kids to have their moments of silence. Provide an open class room for those kids to go in if you're really that desperate.


And that is what I said no? Remove one minute from recess to provide for the minute of silence in the morning. Oh so desperate. You really are reaching here.


If I want to mention another member as an example in my posts, I will do so. Don't like it? You have a choice to leave this debate. Simple.


I am not going to defend that member unless you degenerate known principles. In doing so as you did, your style is to throw as much as possible at the wall and hope it sticks.


You and everybody else on here apparently ownbestenemy. Frankly I'm not interested in hearing it, you can believe what you want to believe about yourself and your agenda.


What is my agenda Southern. Please do tell me. I want to see just how far off you are in your assumptions as it is apparent you operate solely upon them.

One last thing. Here is a story about the oh so tolerant and benevolent State and their views upon religion:
West Covina Teacher Denies Student Religious Practice

The title is my own, because that is what is being claimed. This one hits home as it is a school I attended when I was a wee lad.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 



ketsuko
So, all our kids must have the secular atheist values shoved down their throats


Please explain to the rest of us here exactly what "secular athiest" stuff if being shoved in schools? Please, share, because I'd like to know. Are there athiest classes? Are there athiest text books? What are you talking about?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



ownbestenemy
a moment of silence is a moment to focus the class; just as recess is to rejuvenate students from the 'rigor' of instruction.


At the beginning of the school day? They need to be rejuvenated before they even start classes?


The bill would require schools to give students a moment of silence at the beginning of each school day

www.abcnews4.com...

They have plenty of "minutes" (that includes a minute you know?) just before school starts to get themselves prepared so your case doesn't fly.


I never said "minutes", I said minute.


Yes I know.


It works just fine? How is our system stacking up against the world? Why not try something different? We are somewhere between Armenia and Dubai. Kazakhstan isn't that far behind in some subjects.


So you think adding a minute at the beginning of the school day for these kids to pray or whatever is going to solve the problem of lacking competitiveness in our schools globally? What, are they going to pray to God or Allah or whatever to make American kids reach the top in education standards again? I had to lol at this one, I really did. I'm loving this, I really am. This is the point to where your excuses have gotten.


I am not going to defend that member unless you degenerate known principles.


Oh spare me. Like I said, you have a choice to continue debating with me. Looks like you made that choice so stop complaining.

And this.


And that is what I said no? Remove one minute from recess to provide for the minute of silence in the morning. Oh so desperate. You really are reaching here.


Either you support this bill or you don't. There's no fence sitting (and you wouldn't be the first to try this tactic as to avoid having to debate away your own true position). If you oppose this idea of teacher lead prayer, you oppose the bill in it's entirety because that is part of it. Yet throughout this thread you've spent your entire time defending it and the people behind it including those people who may support it. You know I like a clean and honest debate, it's unfortunate people like you can't participate in one.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
You know I don't have any problem with them being able to take a moment of silence where each can pray to whatever deity they wish however I do have a HUGE problem with the bill stating that the teacher can lead the class in prayer. That I believe would be unconstitutional as the teacher is a government representative and whichever Deity that teacher prayed under would be the same as governmental religious endorsement.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

ownbestenemy

And you couldn't answer why it is so contentious to have a minute of silence save it is a waste of time.


Are you purposely denying the actual topic at hand????
It is not a moment of silence. It is a teacher lead prayer. What if the teacher is Muslim? Still cool with that?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

ketsuko
So, all our kids must have the secular atheist values shoved down their throats so the secular atheist children not potentially be "contaminated" by having to sit through 60 seconds of quiet time.

Yes, we can see how this not shoving our morals down your throat thing works because you have no qualms with shoving your morals down ours.


Please do explain what "atheist morals" are being shoved down anyone' throat.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Buttonlip

ownbestenemy

And you couldn't answer why it is so contentious to have a minute of silence save it is a waste of time.


Are you purposely denying the actual topic at hand????
It is not a moment of silence. It is a teacher lead prayer. What if the teacher is Muslim? Still cool with that?


And you still ignore the fact that I have already said that I do not agree with the language proposed. Are you really that obtuse?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



ownbestenemy
And you still ignore the fact that I have already said that I do not agree with the language proposed.


Oh, so that's why you spent the last 10 pages defending those pushing this law and arguing on their behalf? If you oppose the bill, act like it. Either you do or you don't.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Southern Guardian
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



ownbestenemy
And you still ignore the fact that I have already said that I do not agree with the language proposed.


Oh, so that's why you spent the last 10 pages defending those pushing this law and arguing on their behalf? If you oppose the bill, act like it. Either you do or you don't.


I oppose one clause of the bill and offered that if that language was removed, it wouldn't be a problem. As the bill stands, yes, I have a problem.

Why is this such a problem for you to understand save the desire to try and provoke me into some child tit-for-tat argument. One can oppose a portion of a bill and still agree with the bill as a whole.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Here is what I learned from this "discussion".

-- People are intolerant, even if they promote tolerance.
-- When offered with evidence against their claims, they ignore it.
-- Discussion is not the goal here; it is to make a point...your point. Well played. You win I suppose.
-- Regardless if someone is on their side for a portion, if it is not completely, you will continue to argue without principle or even logic.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



ownbestenemy
I oppose one clause of the bill and offered that if that language was removed, it wouldn't be a problem. As the bill stands, yes, I have a problem.


We're talking about the bill in it's entirety. If the bill is amended to exclude that part of the language then yes we can debate that, but as of now, this is not the case. There's no indication of "compromise" so I still have to really question why you're still here defending the bill and the proponents, supporters behind it. You continue to insist that somehow because you supposedly disagree with the part of the bill involving teacher prayers, this somehow should keep you protected from criticism regarding your agreement with the supporters behind this law, it doesn't work that way.


ownbestenemy
Here is what I learned from this "discussion".


I learned one thing. Some people are cowards. They like to pretend to sit on the fence to avoid criticism.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Southern Guardian
We're talking about the bill in it's entirety.


I did and I offered my commentary on how the bill could be better and more in line with Constitutional principles.


If the bill is amended to exclude that part of the language then yes we can debate that, but as of now, this is not the case.


Again, I offered my opinion on the current state of the bill. You are searching for ground here.


There's no indication of "compromise" so I still have to really question why you're still here defending the bill and the proponents, supporters behind it.


I am not defending any of the backers, as I really have no skin in the game, and I would suspect, unless you are from South Carolina, you also do not have any. Your claim can be turned around and wonder why are you so ardent to deny the People of South Carolina their political Right to self-governance? That is, unless you reside within the State.


You continue to insist that somehow because you supposedly disagree with the part of the bill involving teacher prayers, this somehow should keep you protected from criticism regarding your agreement with the supporters behind this law, it doesn't work that way.


I do not sway from criticism as evident in this thread. I have met all claims head on and answered honestly, without putting up red-herrings, false pretenses or straw-men arguments.

To you, one must either agree or disagree and offer no comment to how it could be better. See my comment on how discussions happen and how ideas become better; hint, your way isn't it.


I learned one thing. Some people are cowards. They like to pretend to sit on the fence to avoid criticism.


You are projecting again, as you did on page one.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

ownbestenemy
I am not defending any of the backers,


of course not. You spend your time throughout this thread arguing these:


What money is wasted, I do pray, -- yes it is a bad pun -- ask? What time is wasted of one minute; in which my guess is children are already setting aside time to reflect on their own, regardless if it is State mandated.


By the way, there are already school districts in the nation that allow for children to practice their religion


In fact, the Department of Education recognizes that while there is this mythical wall of separation, there is also the factual matter that the State (read the Government), cannot stop a person from practicing their faith; even in a school.


Interesting that this is being framed as a "Christian" issue or driven claim. Seems that all faiths want to tell the State -- but out and let us practice our faith when and where we wish; as the First Amendment protects it.


Your claim can be turned around and wonder why are you so ardent to deny the People of South Carolina their political Right to self-governance? That is, unless you reside within the State.


So which is it?

You supposedly oppose the language of the bill where it states teacher leader prayers, but then you continue to parrot what the supporters are saying in defense of this bill. You argue that this is the concern of the people of south carolina, and you readily identify that this is already happening so who should really care? Oh yes, and we can practice our faith where we "wish", this it what you say. But no no no, you don't agree with the part where teachers can lead prayer after saying all of this? Your position is fairly clear here.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



but out and let us practice our faith when and where we wish; as the First Amendment protects it


But you supposedly oppose the language of the bill that states teacher lead prayer right? Hmm.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Southern Guardian
But you supposedly oppose the language of the bill that states teacher lead prayer right? Hmm.


Clever ploy, but do you care to quote what I actually said, in whole? Or just the portion that makes you believe you have some point to make?

Here is the context. I pointed out that faiths of all walks were given time for prayer in districts and I commented the following:


Seems that all faiths want to tell the State -- but out and let us practice our faith when and where we wish; as the First Amendment protects it.


Whoops Southern...seems you are trying to frame my views in your image. Good try though.

Post Script:

In the context of the First Amendment, the above is Constitutionally sound. The State cannot deny a person their religious beliefs, even if they are students on public grounds.
edit on 7-1-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Southern Guardian
You supposedly oppose the language of the bill where it states teacher leader prayers, but then you continue to parrot what the supporters are saying in defense of this bill.


I parrot no one. I speak my own mind.


You argue that this is the concern of the people of south carolina, and you readily identify that this is already happening so who should really care?


This particular bill, yes, is a concern of South Carolina. Where were you when districts across the nation carved out exceptions for religions and those who practice it? You asked for links, I gave them. Did you even bother to educate yourself?


Oh yes, and we can practice our faith where we "wish", this it what you say. But no no no, you don't agree with the part where teachers can lead prayer after saying all of this? Your position is fairly clear here.


What are you so confused about? I believe that an individual can practice their faith; may it be Muslim, Christian or Wiccan, as they see fit; when they see fit. I agree that language allowing a teacher of a public school leading a prayer is wrong, but I agree that if a State wishes to have their schools set aside a moment of silence is not a slippery slope.

Apparently, you have a problem.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Nowhere in my post did I say you believed "christians" specifically had the right to pray wherever they wanted so no, no ploy. Considering that one of the key parts to the law is teacher lead prayer, it's contradictory for you to claim you supposedly oppose it, yet you make this comment:


Seems that all faiths want to tell the State -- but out and let us practice our faith when and where we wish; as the First Amendment protects it.


So again, pretending to sit on the fence as per usual. If this bill passed would you care? Nope, you'd continue defending it and it's proponents while insisting you believe otherwise. Why are you still pretending? Who are you trying to convince?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join