Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the point bears repeating another 15 times. It's not unlike gun fondlers who claim what motivates them is "freedom."Unfortunately, when it comes to ingesting chemicals or prostitution or privacy rights in health services, they oppose such freedoms. It's not about freedom, it's about guns, for them. With these fundy nitwits, it's not about 1st Amendment freedoms, it's about promoting their own religion and trying to foist it upon anyone disinterested or opposed to it, but they're too dishonest to admit this.
Would this include all the liberal posters on here who say they're gun owners also? I'm
By the way chemicals are really not something that is good for your soul or body.
Would this include all the liberal posters on here who say they're gun owners also? I'm
By the way chemicals are really not something that is good for your soul or body.
Modern "liberals" tend to base most of their positions on the common good, rather than on the need for absolute freedoms. Not all of their positions, but most of them. Modern conservatives are increasingly caught up in "libertarian chic," especially towards guns, where the new position seems to be that gun ownership is the foundational right we possess and it shall not be limited in any way. Whereas modern liberalism is trending more and more towards a democratic model, modern conservatism is trending more and more towards anti-democratization. Some of you are actually quite up front about disliking democracy. I will give you credit for that honesty.
Lets change this around. Instead of putting Christian messages and signs all over lets take out "Christian messages" and input "gay" or "Muslim" messages. Anyone think these same people fighting for the Christian message would stand up for others free speech? Just a thought...
Well, considering that at a high school football game in my small Texas town a couple of years ago, a Muslim student led the opening prayer - and no one protested or pitched any sort of fit, and the crowd behaved with absolute respect and decorum, I'd say that free speech went over quite well with "these same people."
Well once again, I'm not trying to suppress anyone's rights. But speaking as an atheist father, the difference a case such as this makes is that I want my son to make up his own mind about religion, and the implication that the entire school he's going to is religious would be misleading. I plan to teach him (assuming he is public schooled) to pay close attention and learn from what the staff at his school have to say. I don't want him picking up religious views as a result of this instruction. That's why I don't want the teachers, the principal, the curriculum they're teaching, or the cheerleaders in uniform promoting Christianity. That's not their job; that's not what I'm paying them for.
Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. But honestly, how on earth is hearing other people being religious going to affect his thinking on the issue? I doubt they're going to make him believe something against what his own father teaches him. And I doubt a religious quote on a banner is going to sway him. I don't believe, but I could care less if others do. In fact, I envy them their faith in life after death. I just don't get not wanting your kid to be exposed to different ideas. How is he supposed to make up his own mind if he's not exposed to religion at all?
Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. But honestly, how on earth is hearing other people being religious going to affect his thinking on the issue? I doubt they're going to make him believe something against what his own father teaches him.
When kids reach a certain age, they begin to learn more from their peers than from their parents. But that's not what this is about. I've already said I'm fine with the students expressing their religious views at school functions and even at school itself. But I don't want my son thinking for a second that the school (an organization put into place specifically to teach facts) is the entity promoting religious views. I guess one might say it gives religion a false credibility in the mind of a child.
Saying "child" makes me realize I must admit I'm thinking of my son (now just under 3 years old) as a young child in elementary school first. But just because this story is about a high school doesn't mean their fight to incorporate religion into school functions can't or won't become a precedent to affect kids in earlier grades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
I just don't get not wanting your kid to be exposed to different ideas. How is he supposed to make up his own mind if he's not exposed to religion at all?
I do want him exposed to different ideas, including religious views. But I don't want a misrepresentation to be any part of his decision. He should know matters of fact from matters of faith. And I mean when he begins hearing about different religions and even after committing to one, if any.
I just don't get not wanting your kid to be exposed to different ideas. How is he supposed to make up his own mind if he's not exposed to religion at all?
From my POV, speaking as a religious minority (Jewish)....
My parents sent me to Jewish religious schools as a child. It wasn't because they didn't want me exposed to Christianity...you cannot live in the United States and not be exposed to Christianity. It is everywhere, it is pervasive, it is omnipresent, you cannot escape it. Its influence is everywhere.
My parents sent me to a religious school to attempt to diminish the effect of the saturation of Christianity and counterbalance it with a Jewish-centric education among other Jewish children because they wanted me to grow up to be an observant Jew with a strong foundation in Judaism, Jewish traditions, and Jewish culture.
YMMV.
Personally I think religion does not belong in public schools at all. Being taxpayer-funded, public schools have obligations that private schools do not have. One of those obligations is to provide a secular environment free of religious influence or coercion.
From my POV, speaking as a religious minority (Jewish)....
My parents sent me to Jewish religious schools as a child. It wasn't because they didn't want me exposed to Christianity...you cannot live in the United States and not be exposed to Christianity. It is everywhere, it is pervasive, it is omnipresent, you cannot escape it. Its influence is everywhere.
My parents sent me to a religious school to attempt to diminish the effect of the saturation of Christianity and counterbalance it with a Jewish-centric education among other Jewish children because they wanted me to grow up to be an observant Jew with a strong foundation in Judaism, Jewish traditions, and Jewish culture.
Good for them for walking the walk.
Quote:
Personally I think religion does not belong in public schools at all. Being taxpayer-funded, public schools have obligations that private schools do not have. One of those obligations is to provide a secular environment free of religious influence or coercion.
As far as the school is concerned I agree. Students have a right to speak their minds.
Well I doubt you would ever move to a small conservative town.
Progressives are best left to live in the big cities where they can display their Satan signs and probably get a few followers.
Oh so you know that every atheist is a progressive?
I'm always stumped why Christians are so right wing. Christians really should stay out of our big cities since we don't live every day according to fairy tales written thousands of years ago by bronze age storytellers.
Oh so you know that every atheist is a progressive?
I'm always stumped why Christians are so right wing. Christians really should stay out of our big cities since we don't live every day according to fairy tales written thousands of years ago by bronze age storytellers.
See how that works.
Oh, so you know that every Christian is right wing? (Unless you were being sarcastic and then, point taken)
No, it's not even a given that they're representing the school body (which of course, would be a misrepresentation already). The school is a separate entity from both the school body and the school authority. Or rather, the latter two are only parts of the former. When I say they're representing the school, that's exactly what I mean. Because the game is an official school function organized, funded, and regulated by the school (both the body and the authority), anything that becomes a part of the function itself is representing the school as a whole.
Then I have to accept your argument that a riot during a football game would be by default authorized and representative of the school board as an extension of an authorized school activity regardless of the school policy or lack of advance planning or acknowlegment of any school official simply because of when and where it occured. Sorry, I cannot go there. I still believe that for something to represent an authoritiy, it must be approved explicitly or avowed by that authority after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If "doing it on your own" doesn't mean "choosing to initiate, make, and pay for it yourself", what do you think it means? It's not respective of whether it's against ANY policy, the phrase "doing it on your own".
In your examples you have stated that any activity incurring during a school activity is a reflection of school opinion or authority. I stated that if the school policy did not forbid the activity you credited to the teach, then it is then tacitly approving and thus the activity must be on the behalf of the school as you credit the cheerleaders activities to be even if they meet the description you list above. If the school policy forbade the activity, then the teacher was by definition "doing it on their own" since it was expressly against school policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I see many problems arising from that already. But my only issue with the entire concept is that it's the TEACHER promoting Islam (I believe "promoting" is the word I used, not "teaching"), thereby giving one religion a higher seat than the next. Same as when you make one religion's views part of an actual school function itself and then allow all the others to be represented by individuals on the sidelines.
In my vocabulary Promoting is synomous with Advocating when used in the manner you are doing. I have not seen anything in your examples to convince me that the teacher only motivation was in advocating or promoting Islam in that sense. I gave the teacher the benefit of the doubt in that regard. IF you are correct in that the teacher was actually promoting as in advocating Islam as a preferred choice of religion, then I think you have a prime example of a violation of the separation of church and state and the teacher should be prosecuted. Unless the school can demonstrate a policy that strictly forbids such promotion and can demonstrate they were unaware of the classroom content provided by the teacher, then then school board and administrators are also under indictment for the same violation.
If, however, the teacher asserts they were only teaching the content and not promoting or advocating a prefence or school endorsement, then they are safe. I would advocate the same treatment for any religious content including christianity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
