Local lawmakers lead push for prayer in schools bill

Southern Guardian
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?

I am glad I have you here to tell me how I would respond. In the language presented, I would argue that it is wrong in the context of the Constitution of not only the United States, but also that of South Carolina's Constitution.

Why do you feel the need to assume that I am insisting that which I have already shown to deny and am willing to defend? The bill itself isn't threatening save one clause and that clause I have problem with....10 pages later apparently.

Who are you trying to convince is the real question.

ownbestenemy
The bill itself isn't threatening save one clause

A minute of silence to me for religious prayer is threatening to me because it is the start of more expansive laws to come, I've made this case already to you. Do you think they're going to stop there? With one minute of silence? The line has to be drawn with school time. You disagree but then again you feel kids should be able to just pray anywhere as with teachers so? And the bill still has that one clause in it, it hasn't been amended, it hasn't gone anywhere, you can go on about how you'd support it if it was amended but this hasn't happened. So what are you still doing here defending it I have to ask again.

Southern Guardian

ownbestenemy
The bill itself isn't threatening save one clause

A minute of silence to me for religious prayer is threatening to me because it is the start of more expansive laws to come...

As threatening as eight minutes for Muslim prayer? Or excused absences for Jewish students? What slippery slope are you scared of?

The line has to be drawn with school time. You disagree but then again you feel kids should be able to just pray anywhere as with teachers so?

Yes they should be able to because it is...wait for it...their First Amendment right, along with their own State's Right to enjoy their religion without interference from the State. I know that is hard for you to understand, but it is what it is.

And the bill still has that one clause in it, it hasn't been amended, it hasn't gone anywhere, you can go on about how you'd support it if it was amended but this hasn't happened. So what are you still doing here defending it I have to ask again.

Yes it is sitting in the Judiciary Committee (you are welcome by the way, since you just posted some article, but I did the leg work of finding the bill and where it is at...) At this point, it could remain as is, but it could *gasp* change because of public commentary. That whole free market of ideas thing I was speaking of....

I am defending a portion of it, not the entirety of it. What the hell is hard to understand? You can provoke all you want but I have infinite patience because I "supposedly" have three boys of young age.

ownbestenemy
As threatening as eight minutes for Muslim prayer?

Those children leave the room and choose to practice their religion and be pointed out as "other." they do not make the whole class engage and ask anyone not wanting to to go wait in the halle.

Or excused absences for Jewish students? What slippery slope are you scared of?

What absences do you speak of? I never saw a single Jewish kid miss a day of school.

Yes they should be able to because it is...wait for it...their First Amendment right, along with their own State's Right to enjoy their religion without interference from the State. I know that is hard for you to understand, but it is what it is.

They already can all without this bill. Nothing prevents anyone from worshiping or praying to whomever they wish. You are supporting a bill the clearly lets the teacher decide who you will pray to and when. That is not what school is for. You have your churches, temples, mosques, and home for that.

Yes it is sitting in the Judiciary Committee (you are welcome by the way, since you just posted some article, but I did the leg work of finding the bill and where it is at...) At this point, it could remain as is, but it could *gasp* change because of public commentary. That whole free market of ideas thing I was speaking of....

But it actually does say what it says. TEACHER LED PRAYER and basically, if you do not like it, go stand in the hall like a freak so the other kids and the teacher can then resent you for it.

I am defending a portion of it, not the entirety of it. What the hell is hard to understand? You can provoke all you want but I have infinite patience because I "supposedly" have three boys of young age.

The only portion you seem to want to defend is nonexistent. Kids can be quiet and pray all they like already. How does this law help?

reply to post by beezzer


I missed the doffing of your hat yesterday :-)

Thank you

I think we mostly agree...probably not entirely

but close enough for government work

:-)

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.

You know, when you resort to making stuff up it doesn't exactly do your side any service. Granted your side doesn't look that good to begin with (hence why you guys do things such as referring to school-mandated prayer as school prayer to fool gullible people into believing that kids aren't allowed to pray in school), but you can at least try to not be as bad.

ketsuko

Southern Guardian
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I am not sure why you are directing such ire towards my comments

Oh I'll direct ire towards anybody who attempts to force any sort of belief system down the throats of others. And get off the excuse that this is just a brief time of silence, people like you know exactly what this is. It the start of more things to come.

You have christian schools, you have muslim schools. You have time before school, you have time after school. You have the entire weekend. You want to spend a moment of silence, there's ample time outside of that. It's not hard to understand so why you insist otherwise is beyond me.

In some cases, up to eight minutes a day for Muslim students.

Interesting, send me a link for this thanks.

Except we don't have those schools unless we have a lot of extra money above and beyond the money we are forced to pay in taxes for your sanitized default schools.

How about this? Give everyone a voucher to use for the school of their choice. Then, your kids can use the tax money you contribute to go to a secular public school and I can use my tax money to send my kids to a place that teaches kids in line with my beliefs.

I'm guessing you've never attended a parochial school not do you have kids attending one. I can't speak for all faiths or congregations but I know that when I was a kid, my church and the diocese picked up most of the tab for catholic school. I know of a couple local mosques that do the same as well as the bigger synagogues. If you attend church and your denomination has an associated school the chances are pretty high that the church itself will subsidize your education because it saves them time in indoctrinating you whereas the son of the Pakistani doctor who sat next to me paid the full price. There were always plenty of non Catholics who's parents didn't want them in public school. Likewise there are many charter schools that you can get vouchers towards the tuition. You're options are not limited to public education due to finances. Geography may play a larger roll than money in some
Instances in regards to options but money isn't as large an obstacle as you present it to be.

ownbestenemy

Wrabbit2000
Strike that, and it becomes nothing religious at all, but I suspect they will still gnash and gnaw and scream bloody murder from the roof tops that a theocracy is just a stones throw away if this goes through.

edit on 6-1-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

This is a quote from one of the bills authors from the original article in the OP

"The compromise would be to have the students to pray to whomever they want to. If they want to do away with teachers conducting the prayer that would be fine with us. The essential part of the bill, the important part, is putting prayer back in school," Gilliard said.

Do you still think its an innocuous action doesn't have religion or prayer at It's heart?

Buttonlip
Those children leave the room and choose to practice their religion and be pointed out as "other." they do not make the whole class engage and ask anyone not wanting to to go wait in the halle.

And I have already stated that in the current form of bill, I am uncomfortable. I suggested an alternative and solicited the opinion of ATS, but apparently posters get sever tunnel vision and focus on one thing only.

What absences do you speak of? I never saw a single Jewish kid miss a day of school.

See my links on page one. It happens even if you have never seen it.

They already can all without this bill. Nothing prevents anyone from worshiping or praying to whomever they wish. You are supporting a bill the clearly lets the teacher decide who you will pray to and when. That is not what school is for. You have your churches, temples, mosques, and home for that.

No I am supporting a portion of the bill. What is with the all or nothing regarding commentary?

I do not support the bill in its current form but support the idea of a moment of silence before class starts; absent religious overtones by a teacher. Good gracious how many different ways can I say that?

But it actually does say what it says. TEACHER LED PRAYER and basically, if you do not like it, go stand in the hall like a freak so the other kids and the teacher can then resent you for it.

Already expressed my opposition to that clause.

The only portion you seem to want to defend is nonexistent. Kids can be quiet and pray all they like already. How does this law help?

The moment of silence is not "nonexistent"; that is the portion I support.

reply to post by peter vlar


Already pointed out that the overtly religious portions of the bill are wrong in my opinion...for the last time...I was even the first to comment on that portion being wrong and unconstitutional. Does anyone ever read anymore?