Bible belt town hates student for preventing prayer at graduation

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Amonkeyist, AND a lush! And you were running for mayor? You've been outed now.

Mayor? Hell, the man's qualified to be governor!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Amonkeyist, AND a lush! And you were running for mayor? You've been outed now.

ETA: Nobody was holding a gun to your head...all you had to do was show a little respect, take a lick and a sip. What's the big deal?

I fear you misunderstand. You see, I am the monkey. And if someone wants to lick me, they have to pay the price.

[Sabrina]

What precisely is unjust about a law that says merely that prayer should not be allowed in government institutions such as public schools? It doesn't prevent the religious from practicing their faith; they are certainly allowed to continue to practice it OUTSIDE of school grounds and functions. They aren't being PREVENTED from practicing their faith; they are merely limited in the locations they may practice it in. This applies to all religions equally, so it's not an unjust discrimination against one particular religious faith. Congress, and by extension all government, is prohibited from displaying favoritism toward any one religious faith over another; that doesn't mean that people are to be prohibited from exercising their faith. A simple call for a moment of silence would allow those who wish to do so to pray silently while others can merely contemplate whatever they want to. There is nothing unjust at all about the law. Please explain why you think it is unjust, Muldur, and why therefore the right thing to do for the student body and the school in general was to disobey the currently accepted interpretation of the law.

And incidentally, harassment is also against the law; by releasing Damon's name, the principal deliberately (at least in appearance) set him up to be harassed, and those who harassed him broke the law as well. But apparently you condone that simply because Damon rightly asked his school to obey the law rather than breaking it, without fanfare, without seeking attention, merely an effort to remind the school district that as a government institution they are prohibited from showing favoritism for any one religion over another.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by caniswalensis

Hi Muldur,

It could be considered as such, but I think it would be quite wrong to do so. What this kid did was anything but cowardly.

Arguably "standing up to the community" if he felt THAT strongly about it might be praiseworthy, but he has to man up and take his social lumps for it.

Quote:

He was not publically denigrating the beliefs of the community. That is an emotional mischaracterization of the situation.

The community is devout, and as part of community life they wanted to acknowledge God. For him to try to force them NOT to do so was denigrating the importance of their belief.

Quote:

He was asking the school admin to abide by state law, which they were in the process of breaking. People wantonly breaking the law in the name of their faith is denigrating to that faith, though.

Again, from King: One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

Quote:

He simply asked them to stop their plan to break the law, and he had a right to do so privately, as there was no compelling reason for his identity to be made public. They revealed his identity so that he would suffer for daring to ask that they abide by the law.

There is no "right to privacy" where one deliberately inserts oneself into the public arena..

Quote:

But what if he had denigrated their faith in a cowardly fashion? Is that justification under Christian doctrine to harrass him, make him a pariah, throw him out on his ear? As a former Christian, I would say "NO".

On that, I actually would agree with you. A Christian response would be to love and pray for him even harder. Being Christian does not make one perfect.

That said, actions DO have consequences. One should not do the deed unless one is prepared to face the fallout. That is what is known as "having the courage of one's convictions"

Quote:

I believe what these people are engaging in is "Religious Hooliganism." They are no more righteous in their actions than a mob of rowdy soccer fans, beating a fan of the rival team. If they spent more time pondering the tenets of their faith and less time worrying about showy, public displays of prayer, they would be more worthy of respect.

I welcome your thoughts on what I have just said.

Those are fair points, even if I disagree in whole or part with some of them.

I would offer the Westboro crowd as another example. Don't have a bit of use for them (even if their basic belief is scripturally sound, their ACTIONS are not Christ-like), but I would tell them the same things I have said here in reference to this atheist's actions.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Very likely true. And if true, I pity the students there; if any of them go to larger colleges they're in for a sadly rude awakening as to how the real world is.

I find the notion that large colleges reflect "the real world"...amusing...

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Muldur

1) The Supreme Court also once upheld "seperate but equal", fugitive slave laws, and a number of other things that are rightly regarded as wrong concepts.

So, the fact that the Supreme Court has in rare occasion repudiated earlier constitutional law is your excuse to avoid statements which are binding now? I don't think that sort of logi-dodging will fly in any court in the land. It is possible they'll repudiate their conclusions about religion in public venues at some point in the future (reason forfend!!), but until then it's the law.

Quote:

2) There are plenty of more recent cases where the court has made it plain that religion is NOT "prohibited" from being a part of public schools, provided the school is not forcing acts of faith on non-believers.

And so the SCOTUS has allowed that everyone can be preached at (which I think is the most charitable view that can be made for out-loud, group prayer at a government sponsored venue)? I don't think so, ACLJ's opinion on that notwithstanding. They aren't the Supreme Court.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Please bend over backwards, close your eyes, place both hands on your crotch, out of respect for our beloved Ganesh, and repeat after me....Now you may lick the holy monkey's armpits, and drink of his holy urine...out of respect for our beliefs.

That obviously crosses WAY over the line from "respect" to "participate", and I suspect you know it.

[Olowkow]

Well, I don't want to risk getting called for being off topic, but I think it is important and kind of fun to push parody once in a while. It shows just how silly the arguments are for "respecting religious beliefs." The argument that no one is forcing someone to comply is really vacuous, once peer pressure and the danger of being socially ostracized are brought into play. How many atheists have run for president?

When I hear someone at a lectern asking me to bow my head in prayer, it is very much like asking me to lick the monkey (no offense to TM), but it would take me more than a few beers to bow my head in prayer, or to bow toward Mecca, or to drink the blood of a leader or the urine of an animal. I really have to try hard to suppress a laugh.

[Sabrina]

Originally Posted by Muldur

I find the notion that large colleges reflect "the real world"...amusing...

They do more so than rural small towns in the Bible Belt, that's for sure.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

They do more so than rural small towns in the Bible Belt, that's for sure.

I don't see how. Most of us can live a full life in a small rural town much easier than we can live a full life on a college campus. If people can actually live their lives as members of a small-town community, how is living in that community not "the real world"?

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

OK, so when you were saying the student in question had "no cause to complain", you were speaking strictly about a legal complaint? You believe he DOES have a cause to complain, socially?

That's odd, because no matter how much you protest to the contrary, it's not legal for a school to endorse a particular religion in this manner. So the only possible complaint you could be talking about is social.

1 ) "The school" was making no such endorsement, and 2 ) even if it was, as the atheist was not forced to actually participate, it fails at least one prong of the Lemon test, so his legal threat was invalid.

The real problem is the issue of balancing rights. The majority has no right to force the minority to actively conform in this case (no compelling greater interest), however, neither does the minority have the right to force the majority to conform to its belief.

The only equitable balancing of rights in this situation is to allow the majority their prayer, while protecting the right of the minority to decline to participate in it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Muldur

The only equitable balancing of rights in this situation is to allow the majority their prayer

How is that "equitable"? "We want to do something that's not permitted in law, and you don't want us to do it, so we'll compromise and do it."

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Precedent is irrelevant if it's overturned by a later decision.

And your case-law showing that this specific precedent (that the religious have a right to publicly express and advocate for their faith) has been overturned and why?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Muldur

One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. - Martin Luthor King Jr

The First Amendment is unjust?

Government sponsored religion is now not a problem for you?

Interesting stance. Not one most religious folks would take, but interesting.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

What precisely is unjust about a law that says merely that prayer should not be allowed in government institutions such as public schools?

That's not the law in any event, as the documents I cited earlier demonstrate, so your objection is moot.

Quote:

It doesn't prevent the religious from practicing their faith; they are certainly allowed to continue to practice it OUTSIDE of school grounds and functions. They aren't being PREVENTED from practicing their faith; they are merely limited in the locations they may practice it in.

Show me where the Constitution allows for that, barring certain circumstances involving active harm to others.

Quote:

This applies to all religions equally, so it's not an unjust discrimination against one particular religious faith.

So it's ok to discriminate against religion as a class vs atheism/secularism?

Contradiction much?

Quote:

Congress, and by extension all government, is prohibited from displaying favoritism toward any one religious faith over another; that doesn't mean that people are to be prohibited from exercising their faith.

nor prohibit the free exercise thereof... - First Amendment

Congress is opened with prayer.

Quote:

Please explain why you think it is unjust, Muldur, and why therefore the right thing to do for the student body and the school in general was to disobey the currently accepted interpretation of the law.

Because the law is unjust. It attempted to deny the majority's right to include religion in their ceremony.

Quote:

And incidentally, harassment is also against the law; by releasing Damon's name, the principal deliberately (at least in appearance) set him up to be harassed, and those who harassed him broke the law as well.

Hate to break it to you, but name-calling isn't "harassment". No principle of law or morality requires one person to like another person or even be civil to them, so long as they do not actively harm him.

His parents kicking him out is callous and un-Christian, but as he is of age, their legal duty to care for him is ended in any event.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by shadron

So, the fact that the Supreme Court has in rare occasion repudiated earlier constitutional law is your excuse to avoid statements which are binding now? I don't think that sort of logi-dodging will fly in any court in the land. It is possible they'll repudiate their conclusions about religion in public venues at some point in the future (reason forfend!!), but until then it's the law.

Which doesn't make it either a Constitutional law or a morally just law. Stare decisis determines neither, which was my point.

Quote:

And so the SCOTUS has allowed that everyone can be preached at (which I think is the most charitable view that can be made for out-loud, group prayer at a government sponsored venue)? I don't think so, ACLJ's opinion on that notwithstanding. They aren't the Supreme Court.

Not the ACLJ's opinion, the opinion of the courts as expressed by the cited cases.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Originally Posted by Muldur

That's not the law in any event, as the documents I cited earlier demonstrate, so your objection is moot.



Show me where the Constitution allows for that, barring certain circumstances involving active harm to others.



So it's ok to discriminate against religion as a class vs atheism/secularism?

Contradiction much?


nor prohibit the free exercise thereof... - First Amendment

Congress is opened with prayer.



Because the law is unjust. It attempted to deny the majority's right to include religion in their ceremony.



Hate to break it to you, but name-calling isn't "harassment". No principle of law or morality requires one person to like another person or even be civil to them, so long as they do not actively harm him.

His parents kicking him out is callous and un-Christian, but as he is of age, their legal duty to care for him is ended in any event.

Please stop with the mo..majority rule speak. It's not contributing to the discussion, since it can easily be displaced by substituting "christian" with "muslim" and seeing if majority rule still applies.

Then again, it's your country, so you decide.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Muldur

That's <snip confusing claims>

Question: Do prayers from a stadium full of 5,000 people not work unless led by an official of a government? What if 5,000 people prayed all by themselves? Does that work just a little bit or not at all?

How do you know this?

Or are Christians just being a little silly?

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How is that "equitable"? "We want to do something that's not permitted in law, and you don't want us to do it, so we'll compromise and do it."

Finish the quote, Tragic...

Quote:

while protecting the right of the minority to decline to participate in it.

This is the only solution that respects the rights of BOTH parties, and this is what occurred.

Under your solution, the atheist would be allowed to deny the right of the devout to their public devotion. That is INequitable by definition

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

The First Amendment is unjust?

Quote:

"nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What part of that do you not get? Any law denying the right of the majority to invoke religion as they choose SO LONG AS they do not actively harm the rights of those of other beliefs (or none) is inherently unjust.

The FA was essentially a ban on an "official state church", a la the Church of England. It was not EVER intended to force the secularization of public discourse.

I suggest you read more on the Founding Fathers and what THEY had to say about the FA.

Here's a start:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._religion.html

Quote:

Government sponsored religion is now not a problem for you?

"The government" sponsored nothing. It required nothing of the non-devout other than that standard of non-disruption that is inherent to civil society.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Under your solution, the atheist would be allowed to deny the right of the devout to their public devotion. That is INequitable by definition

And whoever said this:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."

... obviously did not realize the importance of public devotion to the proper practice of Christianity. Fortunately, good Christians like the ones in this godly school know to ignore people who say silly things like that to deny Christians' rights.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Sabrina]

Again, the most equitable choice for the school to have made would be to have a moment of silence offered in which students, if they so desire, may pray silently or may simply sit and do nothing. That is the most fair end result, not going ahead with a public prayer.

You seem to not get something here, Muldur; I have no objections to the students praying at the event. What I object to is the appearance that the school is endorsing one particular religion over another or none at all, which is prohibited by the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" etc.) A public prayer led by a representative of the school violates that. The valedictorian was acting as a representative of the school, IMO, when she started praying; therefore the school violated the law. I never said the students should be stopped from praying if they so desired; I am merely saying that the Constitution does not allow for the school to lead a prayer since, as a government institution, they are prohibited from showing favoritism for one religion over another. The correct response in this situation will always be for the school to merely call for a moment of silence in which the students may pray silently if they so choose; it allows for the practice of faith while not showing favoritism for one religious faith over another or over no religious faith at all.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

Please stop with the mo..majority rule speak. It's not contributing to the discussion, since it can easily be displaced by substituting "christian" with "muslim" and seeing if majority rule still applies.

That's a slightly different issue, as Islam is by definition a "state religion"...it acknowledges NOTHING as being secular, and (in the orthodox tradition) is antithetical to the notion of protecting non-Islamic rights.

However, in a theoretical US that had both the FA AND a non-statist Islam as a primary religion, I would say the rule still applied.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Muldur

There is no "right to be liked", nor a "right to attack the rights of others anonymously". If you do something despicable, don't be shocked that people will despise you.

The release of Damon's name was an attempt to intimidate and stifle him. One of the aims of the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muldur

That's <snip confusing claims>

Question: Do prayers from a stadium full of 5,000 people not work unless led by an official of a government? What if 5,000 people prayed all by themselves? Does that work just a little bit or not at all?

How do you know this?

Or are Christians just being a little silly?

The only thing "silly" is you avoiding addressing the argument by dismissing it as "confusing".

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Under your solution, the atheist would be allowed to deny the right of the devout to their public devotion. That is INequitable by definition

No. The devout would be required to restrain their public devotion to the appropriate times and places--which do not include public school events.

If they're so big on prayer in public, why aren't they praying in shopping malls? In the park? In libraries? Because it's not about prayer, it's about exerting power. They were told there is ONE place they can't pray so naturally they must, must, must, must pray there. It's the only possible place for prayer. Church is right out, prayer must occur in public schools or else it doesn't count.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Muldur

I suggest you read more on the Founding Fathers and what THEY had to say about the FA.

The Founding Fathers were a mix of deists, theists and agnostics. Probably the reason for the non-establishment clause.

[Sabrina]

Jefferson was a Universalist, as I recall.

Which is fun for me, as I identify primarily as a Unitarian Universalist.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Again, the most equitable choice for the school to have made would be to have a moment of silence offered in which students, if they so desire, may pray silently or may simply sit and do nothing. That is the most fair end result, not going ahead with a public prayer.

You seem to not get something here, Muldur; I have no objections to the students praying at the event. What I object to is the appearance that the school is endorsing one particular religion over another or none at all, which is prohibited by the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" etc.) A public prayer led by a representative of the school violates that. The valedictorian was acting as a representative of the school, IMO, when she started praying; therefore the school violated the law. I never said the students should be stopped from praying if they so desired; I am merely saying that the Constitution does not allow for the school to lead a prayer since, as a government institution, they are prohibited from showing favoritism for one religion over another. The correct response in this situation will always be for the school to merely call for a moment of silence in which the students may pray silently if they so choose; it allows for the practice of faith while not showing favoritism for one religious faith over another or over no religious faith at all.

It doesn't matter how often this factual representation is repeated, the hard core religious type just doesn't get it. No point in arguing with them as they are merely disingenuous folk. I can't take any of them seriously.

I get the impression some of them like to stand out in crowds by loudly acting like they are praying or something. Looks pretty silly to me. It is just a shame that an entire school, nearly, has to go along with this nonsense. It is really just a mob mentality. Damon did say that he had quite a few supporters. I had the feeling from his interview that a lot of atheists actually came out of the closet over this.

I certainly hope so, it is so typical of the uber theists shooting themselves in the foot.

[Dr. Keith]

I say Muldur wins. It would be rude of us to deny him this win. He put more into this argument than any of us.

Thanks for winning!

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Myriad

And whoever said this:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."

Also said this:

Quote:

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

put differently and more succinctly:

Quote:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

Quote:

... obviously did not realize the importance of public devotion to the proper practice of Christianity. Fortunately, good Christians like the ones in this godly school know to ignore people who say silly things like that to deny Christians' rights.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I suggest you go do more extensive study of the passage you originally cited...

As the saying goes "It does not mean what you think it means..."

In that verse (Matthew 6:5, to be precise), Jesus specifically refers to the "hypocrites" (in both senses of the word).

What is a hypocrite?

Quote:

1: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

Jesus correctly states that their motive is NOT truly spiritual, but "to be seen by men" (and therefore respected by them).

The Christian is called to be a "light unto the world", and not to hide his faith away for only his own ends.

Quote:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:14-16

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Resume

The release of Damon's name was an attempt to intimidate and stifle him. One of the aims of the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Was it a petty thing to do? Perhaps, but there is no "right" for him to attempt to suppress the rights of the majority in a public venue from decidedly non-public anonymity.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Resume

The Founding Fathers were a mix of deists, theists and agnostics. Probably the reason for the non-extablishment clause.

And the theists among them understood the pervasively toxic effects that being an official state-mandated or specially state-sanctioned religion have on the religion itself. There is nothing spiritually worse for a religion than being affiliated with the state.

Look at what even the small vestige of state sanctioning that they themselves sought drove the Christian people of Bastrop to do. They arranged a showy, prideful, and spitefully motivated public display of devotion of exactly the hypocritical type that Christ explicitly forbade, and by so doing they showed they love themselves far more than the neighbor who advised them not to. You could line up ten thousand atheists to take turns spitting on a cross and be less offensive to the spirit of Christ's love and the letter of Christ's teachings. Satan has his grip on that town for sure.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Sabrina]

If there ever were to be a government established religion, IMO the only fair one to establish would be Unitarian Universalism.

We believe your spiritual journey is your own and no one else's, and no one has the right to tell you what to believe or whom to believe in. Atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Wiccans; all are welcome in a UU church.

ETA: Even you, Muldur, would be welcome; provided you did not attempt to force your beliefs on anyone else. Reasoned debate is encouraged, but not proselytizing.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Resume

The Founding Fathers were a mix of deists, theists and agnostics. Probably the reason for the non-establishment clause.

Read their words. They certainly WEREN'T atheists (as a body), nor did they intend the FA to be used to silence religious observance in public venues.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Muldur

1 ) "The school" was making no such endorsement,

I would agree with you IF the graduation ceremony were planned by the students, paid for by the students, and presided over by the students with no school officials being involved.

Quote:

and 2 ) even if it was, as the atheist was not forced to actually participate, it fails at least one prong of the Lemon test, so his legal threat was invalid.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Guess who wins?

Quote:

The real problem is the issue of balancing rights. The majority has no right to force the minority to actively conform in this case (no compelling greater interest), however, neither does the minority have the right to force the majority to conform to its belief.

In this case the minority doesn't have a belief, and clearly would like it to stay that way.

Quote:

The only equitable balancing of rights in this situation is to allow the majority their prayer, while protecting the right of the minority to decline to participate in it.

Not according to the current interpretation of the First Amendment.

[Sabrina]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Read their words. They certainly WEREN'T atheists (as a body), nor did they intend the FA to be used to silence religious observance in public venues.

Thing is, Muldur, religious observance doesn't HAVE to be blatant. God will hear a prayer whether it is said out loud or not.

A simple, silent prayer is quite sufficient; who said it had to be everyone praying out loud? Where is that written?

Would you be content with a simple moment of silence in which everyone is invited to use the time in silent contemplation or prayer, whichever they so desire? Or is "religious observance" only to be spoken out loud, in your book?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

I would agree with you IF the graduation ceremony were planned by the students, paid for by the students, and presided over by the students with no school officials being involved.

I would rather it happen pretty much this way. Even if paying for public education makes sense, I really don't see the community benefit for paying for this ceremony. It's quite irrelevant.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Read their words. They certainly WEREN'T atheists (as a body), nor did they intend the FA to be used to silence religious observance in public venues.

They probably also didn't intend for there to be open warfare in the inner city when they penned the Second Amendment. Times change.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Thing is, Muldur, religious observance doesn't HAVE to be blatant. God will hear a prayer whether it is said out loud or not.

In fact, that is the preferred way to pray, according to the Gospel.