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.
Well, basically I'm just going to come out and say what I really think: I'm right and you're wrong. Setting aside a "moment of silence" where students may decide to pray flies in the face of the first amendment, is a waste of time, and is nothing more than political point-scoring by the religious right. Why do they do it? Because they can...simple. There is no legitimate basis for setting aside instructional time for something students can do the other 16 hours of the day.
We can "agree to disagree", but that's not going to change the fact that this is wrong, wrong, WRONG. These "moments of silence" are part of the religious right's plan to evangelize in public schools. It's nothing but intimidation of those who aren't Christian. Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT a Christian country...the government is meant to be secular, i.e. blind to religious differences. How I wish the religious right would remember that, but no...they'd rather pee all over the Constitution and bring us all one step closer to forcing children to pray in public schools and using our public institutions as instruments of evangelism. It's unacceptable, and I will continue to fight it as long as I draw breath.
Apparently you missed my last point, which was that the government was involved in this case in Illinois, and they were the ones who passed the law, requiring the schools to have that nasty moment of silence, not the local school district. You said the government should be involved to separate church and state, and yet they were the ones who instituted this Illinois law in the first place. How is this law a separation? Does not their, (the government's), action fly in the face of what you, yourself, have been saying? I don't see where the government kept the separation that you seem to be so adamant about.
I will repeat myself: I am not part of the religious right, and I do not think that prayer, as most people understand it, should be re-introduced into the public school system, (for the record, I am neither a fundamentalist, nor am I an evangelical! Actually, I don't even attend church, of any kind). Parents have every right to not expect their children to be subjected to any school-led, school endorsed religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Wicca, or any other. By the same token, I do not take a moment of silence to be that threatening, as obviously you do.
Apparently you missed my last point, which was that the government was involved in this case in Illinois, and they were the ones who passed the law, requiring the schools to have that nasty moment of silence, not the local school district. You said the government should be involved to separate church and state, and yet they were the ones who instituted this Illinois law in the first place. How is this law a separation? Does not their, (the government's), action fly in the face of what you, yourself, have been saying? I don't see where the government kept the separation that you seem to be so adamant about.
I will repeat myself: I am not part of the religious right, and I do not think that prayer, as most people understand it, should be re-introduced into the public school system, (for the record, I am neither a fundamentalist, nor am I an evangelical! Actually, I don't even attend church, of any kind). Parents have every right to not expect their children to be subjected to any school-led, school endorsed religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Wicca, or any other. By the same token, I do not take a moment of silence to be that threatening, as obviously you do.
I can read, you know; it is not necessary to underline words to emphasize them.
Laws can be wrong, and laws can be overturned. Next you'll be telling me that by my logic, I should have fought to keep Jim Crow laws in effect.
You say you don't want prayer introduced back into public schools but you're OK with a law whose intention is to do precisely that. Explain...without underlining or bolding words.
I don't really care either way on this. I don't think that there should be corporate prayer in schools, since that strikes me as state-sponsored syncretism. I'm also not going to get into a huff if kids are given a moment for self-reflection, etc.
For those who are adamant about fighting this; is this the hill that you're willing to die on? Nothing makes a group look crazier or more reactionary than when their members make big deals out of small items.
I don't really care either way on this. I don't think that there should be corporate prayer in schools, since that strikes me as state-sponsored syncretism. I'm also not going to get into a huff if kids are given a moment for self-reflection, etc.
For those who are adamant about fighting this; is this the hill that you're willing to die on? Nothing makes a group look crazier or more reactionary than when their members make big deals out of small items.
So...protecting the first amendment is considered "reactionary" now? If that's the prevailing view in this country, I fear for the future.
I can read, you know; it is not necessary to underline words to emphasize them.
Laws can be wrong, and laws can be overturned. Next you'll be telling me that by my logic, I should have fought to keep Jim Crow laws in effect.
You say you don't want prayer introduced back into public schools but you're OK with a law whose intention is to do precisely that. Explain...without underlining or bolding words.
You believe that the intention of allowing a moment of silence is to re-introduce prayer into school. I don't; I believe it was/is the government's way of trying to sooth two opposed groups of people. Perhaps it is fence-riding, but, so long as it remains a moment of silence, and nothing more, (and without the government passing laws forcing it), I don't have a particular problem with it.
You believe that the intention of allowing a moment of silence is to re-introduce prayer into school. I don't; I believe it was/is the government's way of trying to sooth two opposed groups of people. Perhaps it is fence-riding, but, so long as it remains a moment of silence, and nothing more, (and without the government passing laws forcing it), I don't have a particular problem with it.
It isn't a moment of silence. It is a moment of silence for "prayer or reflection." It is a time period during a school day specifically set aside for prayer, or some other "reflection" if one is not religious. The "or reflection" language is only included to allow these bills to possibly pass constitutional muster.
So...protecting the first amendment is considered "reactionary" now? If that's the prevailing view in this country, I fear for the future.
Well, I don't believe in institutionalized prayer in public schools, and this strikes me as every bit as reactionary as people who see background checks for firearms ownership as a huge affront to the second amendment.
There are two schools of thought on how to approach issues like these. The first school of thought says: "We need to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand. So, we're going to react harshly against the smallest of infringements so that this doesn't escalate."
The second school of thought says: "We need to win in the court of public opinion. That might mean giving what we see as a little ground so that we don't look like fanatics, and can then garner support from others when it becomes something more substantive."
I tend to believe that the second approach is more effective. I also tend to believe that people are going to be hard-pressed to prove that self-reflection or prayer means the establishment of a religion. Which religion is it? Which doctrines or dogmas are being inculcated?
It isn't a moment of silence. It is a moment of silence for "prayer or reflection." It is a time period during a school day specifically set aside for prayer, or some other "reflection" if one is not religious. The "or reflection" language is only included to allow these bills to possibly pass constitutional muster.
Please don't be naive about this.
"OR" ~ that is the operative word. "OR". Prayer OR reflection ~ whichever one is selected by the students. Their CHOICE ~ this is such a win-win situation for the school and students. Every student gets to use those few moments in their own, unique way. I hope other states / schools will follow suit...
Last edited by Sooner_Nation_60; 11-01-2007 at 01:11 PM..
Reason: typo
"OR" ~ that is the operative word. "OR". Prayer OR reflection ~ whichever one is selected by the students. Their CHOICE ~ this is such a win-win situation for the school and students. Every student gets to use those few moments in their own, unique way. I hope other states / schools will follow suit...
Students ALREADY have the option to pray. It's their constitutional right. What is not constitutional is the STATE setting aside a time for this option.
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.
