Are you on drugs?? Of course it is. Unless it goes:
Oops – you can’t end the prayer with Amen since that is purely a Jewish and Christian practice. Heck, and I was on a roll.
Can’t you see all the presumptions inherent in even the simplest prayer?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
First, might I suggest that we tone down the language here a little? I don’t think anything useful is going to come of a discussion involving phrases like “kooks” and “are you on drugs”. If we wish to make our points and hope to be understood, we need to refrain from inflammatory language. Agreed?
foolsguinea has a point, in that a distinction needs to be made. A student-led prayer, done privately (say, quietly in the locker room) among students who share the same religious belief, is not proselytization. It is simply exercising one’s freedom to practice religion. In doing so, one does need to be respectful of others who may not share those beliefs. First, one does not lead the entire team in prayer unless one is sure that the entire team is OK with this. Second, one does not engage in such a prayer over a loudspeaker or before the spectators unless one knows for a fact that it reflects the beliefs of all spectators. Third, one does not conduct prayers and other religious activities in a publicly-funded forum (say, in the hearing of the entire crowd at a public-school football game) unless one is prepared to be comprehensive (which, as I pointed out early, seems a practical impossibility) because this constitutes government endorsement of one particular religious system or systems.
Of these three points, the first two are marks of respect that one person ought to show another. They also reflect my personal stance that religion is a matter of personal conscience; and my view that one might have better success in proselytizing by demonstrating a little common courtesy first. Surely this is basic to any constructive human communication. The third point (above) is, in my mind, unconstitutional.
And, it occurs to me, if one wishes to proselytize, surely one has plenty of avenues for doing so without having the government help do it.
I have great respect for people of strong conviction, whether religiously-based or otherwise. It takes great strength of character to live one’s life according to principles that one believes in firmly, whatever they might be, when there are so many influences that challenge those beliefs. If you (generic/anyone) can’t recognize and respect that strength in other people, why should they recognize and respect it in you?
Here’s a copy of one of my posts from the “Subliminable?!”
foolsguinea complained that Zenster was mentally deficient if he thought that “Freedom for Religion” and “Freedom from Religion” were synonymous.
This is my response:
I believe that Zenster is saying that “Freedom of [or “for”] religion” necessarily encompasses freedom from religion, as most people think of it.
For instance, you could fairly say that my religion is Humanism. This “belief” holds that there is no god of any kind, and that there are in general no supernatural forces. I’m sure Olasky would say I’m asking for Freedom from religion if I simply described my disbelief. But this disbelief in itself is recognized as a “religion.” Therefore, the First Amendment must protect disbelief to the same extent it protects belief. So in the end, freedom for religion IS freedom from (traditional) religion.
Here’s a link to a US Supreme Court case regarding religious tests for public office (check out footnote 11 for some atheistic religions): Torcaso v. Watkins
> Let the kids pray to Jesus, Allah, Mithra, Satan, whomever–FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON CAMPUS–but don’t force them to do so.
That’s the way it is now. Students can pray; they just can’t be forced to.
I do not think the “Freedom for Religion” and “Freedom From Religion” are synonymous. In no way shape or form. This is the pivotal issue in this thread.
As to the second part of your quote. You are absolutely right.
Well, if the students want to go into a corner and pray, fine. No one can stop them. If they did, that would be wrong.
However, if they started saying it to everyone over the loud speaker…that would be wrong…
'As long as there are Math tests, there will be Prayer in school.
I would like to throw in two facts all should keep in mind here:
[/list]
Vice-Prez Candidate Lieberman has said the same exact thing about “freedom of” differing from “freedom from”
The latest praying at football incident was protested by parents of a Catholic student and parents of another denomination (Adventists or Jehovah’s, maybe?)[/list]
So remember, it’s not just evil republicans against the noble democratic upholders of the constitution, and it’s not just ‘them atheists or mooslims’ that have a problem with the prayers.
Anybody been to Afghanistan lately? (Didn’t think so.) Try living under the extremist Taliban for an hour, much less a day.
It’s hilarious how aggrieved Christians get in this country over such stupid non-issues as school prayer. The only thing possibly funnier is the other side.
Overblown rhetoric in political conversations is nothing new, of course. So why does it rarely fail to make me laugh?
is Gore a tree? is Bush a dyslexic Elmer Fudd? and why did Kid Rock fax a photocopied pic of his bare ass to a bank in Portugal? http://www.angelfire.com/indie/brainingdamage
Gaudere has already addressed this, uh, interesting point perfectly well, but I have a question: you want us to proseltyze to you? Good lord, like there isn’t enough of that from other religions already!
No, I don’t want the Jews to proselytize to me. Islam & Christianity were invented to take the Abrahamic religious tradition out of a nationalistic, henotheistic mold. It’s been done.
But your answer demonstrates my original point.
Admittedly, it’s not the rabbinical theory I was originally referring to (I got sidetracked there), but a cultural attitude. Many people from different traditions avoid religious discussion that reminds them of what church they’re avoiding. That was in my mind in my first dig.
Jews additionally don’t want religion in public discourse, partly 'cause they’re afraid of pogroms, and partly because to them, religion is a non-transferable national trait, like blue eyes or epicanthal folds. To a Christian or Muslim (or a Marxist, for another example) religion is a universal truth: One truth for one world, no exemptions. It’s a totally different worldview.
Note that I didn’t say that any of these religions is right. But if there is, as Zenster claims, cause for skepticism about religious truth, then those who claim to have divine word piercing that veil of doubt have a right to advance their case in a public forum. If, on the other hand, the existence of God has been disproven, why are we giving them any freedom to perpetuate lies? Sheesh!
So long as religion is a “personal matter”, protected from public discourse and public scrutiny, pernicious superstitions will be allowed to breed freely. We need the light of day to shine in on the benighted.
Oh, but there I go again, thinking that truth is an absolute. Silly realistic me. If I’m going to get along in this society, I must subscribe to the orthodoxy that there is no truth, and everyone is free to his own opinion.
:rolleyes:
If you don’t understand why that’s ridiculous, never mind. I’m not really writing English, this is just a discussion of knish recipes in Dervonian (despite what it looks like and where is my hat?)
Ok, let me clarify a couple of things.
I didn’t invent “bringing the world in line with the will of God.” It’s an idea essential to Islam, and embraced within certain schools of Christian thought (or even say, the “messianic race” idea among Jews). God has a plan, and good men serve it. Don’t blame me, I’m just telling you how some of these people think. Admittedly, some Christians don’t care, and are just waiting to die so they can go home to be with Jesus. But I was thinking of those churches that take the “Great Commission” seriously.
Second, when I said,
I meant over the loudspeaker as in the Texas case. Everybody missed it, so let me say it explicitly. Hearing someone else’s prayer does not entail praying yourself. Or does Zenster not understand the distinction between “self” and “other” either?
This assumes that a charity organization created by a religious institution is, in and of itself, religious. Which isn’t necessarily true.
Basically, I see no reason why we shouldn’t distribute money to existing charity organizations for the purpose of further distribution simply because the founders of said organization were of a particular denomination, as long as doing so A: enhances the effectiveness of welfare aid, and B: the money doesn’t go to clearly religious (i.e.- preaching, printing religious tracts, etc.) purposes.
Holy shooby-doop, that’s a long sentence.
What is it you don’t get about separation of church and state? I shall explain this carefully. The government of the United States is forbidden by its charter, the Constitution of the aforementioned United States of America, from endorsing a state religion. As they are run and owned by said government, public schools also must obey this rule. Yes, this even includes Texas. And its school system. If a student prays, that is fine. But prayer cannot be endorsed by the school, as it is part of the United States government. See how this works? Since these football games are funded by the State of Texas, they must obey this law. It doesn’t matter if people in the stands are okay with hearing people pray over the loudspeaker, the school cannot endorse any religious viewpoint. The loudspeaker, the football field, the uniforms, the lights at the stadium, the marching band uniforms, the chalk liner, the referee whistles - all these things are bought and paid for by the taxes of the citizens of the State of Texas. It goes against the Constitution and federal law to use these taxes to promote one religion over another.
It doesn’t matter if every single person in the stands is a fundamentalist Christian who think that Jack Chick is the Poet Laureate. If it’s a public school, it is illegal to endorse a religion.
Am I being too repetitive? Probably. I’m operating on the theory that if I say it enough times, foolsguinea will get it.
This may be enlightened, but it is hardly feasible. The same people who advocate giving money to faith-based charities are advocating banning Harry Potter books in schools. If there were no hidden agendas, then perhaps I could sanction this idea. Give to all and give alike. But anyone with any political acumen would have a hard time forseeing that this would ever happen.
MR
And to belabor if not clarify Kyla’s point: one can make the argument that hearing someone else prey, in a setting paid for by the United States government, does constitute a promotion of religion. No, hearing someone else pray is not the same thing as praying yourself (as foolsguinea rightly pointed out). That’s not the point; no one here (I think) is suggesting that hearing someone else pray is illegal or unconstitutional. But when this happens in a setting which is, even if only in part, paid for by the US gov’t, then it has the de facto result of promoting that religion by partially financing its expression.
To turn the question around: how can a prayer said over a loud-speaker at a public school football game not have the appearance of having been sanctioned by the federal government? The distribution of public funds is the most significant way in which the government sanctions (approves of, endorses) the activities of any person or group.
To illustrate using an analogous situation (this is intended as a hijack): the question involving the NEA is not whether certain kinds of art should be made at all; it is the whether the gov’t should appear to sanction/approve of/ endorse certain kinds of art by financing its production via the NEA.
foolsguinea I hope you understand that I respect what you are saying, and the distinctions you are trying to draw.
Oh boy, I should proof better than I did…
That should’ve been “pray”, not “prey”.
And my illustration was “not intended as a hijack”.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Y’know, I do appreciate the points you’re making. I want to suggest an alternative view.
Does it offend you that much that someone with a different religious viewpoint from yours could have a public forum?
If that is so offensive to you, I can suppose that anyone using government “financing” to espouse a political view different from your own also offends you. After all, politics can have a direct effect on your life.
Or is that different? If so, why?
About this being government “financing” of religion:
The kids aren’t being paid to “preach the word” over that loudspeaker, they’re just doing it. Is that really government financing of a religion? We pay congressmen salaries to speak their minds and make decisions that affect our lives. Should religious scruple be excluded from all those conversations because of how they’re paid? Maybe there isn’t really a constitutional obligation to maintain a rigid secularity in the schools. It may be a good idea. It may not.
But when you endorse religionlessness in public fora, and specifically in schools, you endorse religionlessness in general. Don’t be surprised when your heartfelt beliefs are dismissed as the fanatical beliefs of old fogies.
Our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. That is why you automatically suffer no Government based discrimination against you views. The separation of church and state are another thing entirely. The government is specifically prohibited from facilitating the dissemination of any religious material. This is the only way to ensure that your own faith will not endure a moment’s oppression.
[Foghorn Leghorn] Any of this penetratin’ that thick skull o’ your’s boy? [/Foghorn Leghorn]
You may have any legal public forum you might choose. In that place I may peacefully debate you or merely walk away. A person in school has no such choices.
Please get a clue that your faith is equally protected this way and by no other method can such results be achieved.
Amen to that. I had a burst of naivete earlier. Forgive me. I was trying to get at that IF and ONLY IF giving money to religious institutions for purposes of better distribution would succeed AND not go towards funding religious doctrine, it should be undertaken. But, as (I think) you pointed out, this would, in fact, be a bit unrealistic on a large scale.
Only if one assumes several things:
-
The person praying is an employee/agent of the government.
-
It’s official government policy for that person’s prayer to be overheard by others.
-
It’s official government policy for that person’s religion to take precedence over all other religions.
Look, there are conflicting points here: the infamous “seperation of church and state” and “freedom of religion/freedom of speech”. If I were to pray in a public school, that is in no way a sign of the government supporting one religion over another, that’s a sign of the government supporting a person’s right to practice his/her religion. However, it is YOUR right, (freedom of speech) to tell me to stop my blasphemy/obnoxious behavior/etc.
Students may attend school funded by a governmental body, but that in no way makes the students themselves part of government administration.