Local lawmakers lead push for prayer in schools bill

Mveins0
Separation of church and state. Discussion over. You want prayer? Do it on privately owned property.

Yeah, don't use a bible to swear in a witness in court, or use a bible to swear in a president, or use a bible passage to open the Senate, or Supreme Court.

LOLZ

reply to post by beezzer


:-)

It is pretty powerful - but it's not an idea

As I posted above, abstinence is taught - it's just not taught from a religious perspective

You home-school - right? I imagine this is part of the reason why. But - sex-ed is not about belief - it's about teaching kids basic and useful information about their bodies. I know that really rubs a lot of people the wrong way -but, from what I just read - a parent can have their kid opt-out of these classes

So, I'll reply to both posts here - how is not having a moment of silence denying your child his or her religious freedom? Is that moment of silence something mandated by your religion?

reply to post by beezzer


Exactly.. I've refused to swear on anything in court. As your bible means nothing to me. It should not be allowed.. and in the future I see even that going by the wayside. As it should. This is not a Christian nation.. what place has your bible to do in any government function? None.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer

 

:-)

It is pretty powerful - but it's not an idea

Point: you.

As I posted above, abstinence is taught - it's just not taught from a religious perspective

Nor should it be.

You home-school - right? I imagine this is part of the reason why. But - sex-ed is not about belief - it's about teaching kids basic and useful information about their bodies. I know that really rubs a lot of people the wrong way -but, from what I just read - a parent can have their kid opt-out of these classes

I home-school because my kid is smarter than me. (no jokes there! )

So, I'll reply to both posts here - how is not having a moment of silence denying your child his or her religious freedom? Is that moment of silence something mandated by your religion?

It isn't. People are complaining about the time wasted having a moment of silence. I used sex ed as an example of how time is also used against the traditional school venue.
Then people started saying it's against church and state. But that is false. The state is not endorsing any specific religion.

I'm just surprised to see so much opposition to one minute being spent in whatever worship you choose.
I'm surprised that there is such opposition to allowing a person to take that time to worship/pray/day dream.

We waste so much time in public schools with "self-esteem" seminars and cheerleading, and neglect the basics.

Why are you so against a minute, a small oppourtunity to just pray?

Mveins0
reply to post by beezzer

 

Exactly.. I've refused to swear on anything in court. As your bible means nothing to me. It should not be allowed.. and in the future I see even that going by the wayside. As it should. This is not a Christian nation.. what place has your bible to do in any government function? None.

reply to post by beezzer


Quite the idiotic reply. Are you indeed trying to imply that without religion.. more specifically your religion, there will be nothing but anarchy?

I dont think sex is 'so powerful' a person, any person can't take 1 or 2 seconds to think of the consequences of the action.

Between STD's, and HIV, and pregnancy, that should give everyone EVEN the younger generation a moment of pause.

Abstinence is the easiest to live with out of all of what could happen.

Mveins0
reply to post by beezzer

 

Quite the idiotic reply.

Thank you. I work very hard at that.

Are you indeed trying to imply that without religion.. more specifically your religion, there will be nothing but anarchy?

Do you even know what my religion is?

Mveins0
Separation of church and state. Discussion over. You want prayer? Do it on privately owned property.

Seems you are uncomfortable with freedom and willfully neglect the portion of the First Amendment that reopens your argument (it is by far from "over") and that is "...or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof,"

Practice of religion can be done anywhere in the public square. It is on private property that it can be restricted by the property owner. You have an interesting view on freedom.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Wasn't "separation of church and state" an interpretation and not actually in the Constitution?

I go to you because you'll know.

reply to post by beezzer


yup. the idea came from thomas jefferson.. the prevailing interpretation comes from a number of legal decision over the course of US history.

reply to post by beezzer

Why are you so against a minute, a small oppourtunity to just pray?

I'm not against a kid's right to pray - and I believe a kid can pray - any time they want? They don't require an officially set aside moment for that

I'm not against them actually praying - go to it

I'm against a mandatory moment set aside, for everyone, during which it's up to a teacher (any teacher) to decide whether or not there is a prayer said - and then what that prayer is going to be

Public school is not the place for this - not mandated - not officially

As I mentioned in my other post - if the teacher is an atheist - does that teacher then get to use that time to spout their beliefs?

This is unworkable - and as of the last time I checked - it's not legal

I understand that this is a state - that's trying to pass a state law

Frankly - if nothing else - it will be interesting to see where this goes

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


In schools they have mandatory classes, mandatory lunches, mandatory breaks, mandatory recess, mandatory start times, mandatory stop times, mandatory testing schedules.


It's that mandatory minute that bothers you?

Fair enough.

Good argument. Great debate!

(It's why I love ATS!)

reply to post by beezzer


Thanks Beez - nice debating you too - but I'm not quite done yet :-)

It's most certainly not just the mandatory part - it's the mandatory religiousness

Unacceptable

But, there's really no reason for me to point that out

I know you're not obtuse

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer

 

Thanks Beez - nice debating you too - but I'm not quite done yet :-)

It's most certainly not just the mandatory part - it's the mandatory religiousness

Unacceptable

But, there's really no reason for me to point that out

I know you're not obtuse

Then take that time and don't be religious.

I didn't realize that there was a clause in the bill that stated that someone HAD to be religious.

If that 1 minute is forcing someone to pray, then I am against it.

Could you please point out where forced religion is mandated?

Mveins0
reply to post by beezzer

 

yup. the idea came from thomas jefferson.. the prevailing interpretation comes from a number of legal decision over the course of US history.

Even then, it is misrepresented and only the portion that fits the narrative of the "wall of separation" is ever spoken of. For instance, the letter was in direct response to the Danbury Baptist in which they expressed their concern that their religious freedom wasn't an "immutable right", but rather a privilege of the state granted as a favor.

Here in portion, is Jefferson's letter and the whole of the concept in context:

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State...

The term was a paraphrase of the whole of the Establishment Clause; not as it has been taken, as an absolute construct between the church and the state.

Anarchy is not violent chaos. Anarchy is simply a lack of the state.

Ugh.

Government is just fancy organized crime units. Talk about successful propaganda that people believe non-violent stateless existence is "violent", hateful chaos.

Anytime someone equates anarchy with violence they are completely ass backwards. State=violence. It's whole existence is based on armed robbery. Anarchy simply means there is no state or "rulers" using violence as a way of controlling people.

100% control over ones own human capital = anarchy.