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.
Why do so many theists have this need to publicly proclaim their faith, to brandish it in the faces of those who either do not believe or are not interested and then to act all offended when they get called out on it?
Many of the theists do these kinds of public displays of faith hoping it will annoy and irritate atheists and followers of other religions. When a student complains about a Christian prayer mural that is displayed at their school, that is exactly what many Christians were going for. The prayer mural in this case was displayed as a tool of division and hatred for anyone that doesn't follow their same brand of idol worship.
@gallowsCalibrator : You continue to use the incorrect definition of "respect" as used in the Establishment clause. Until you get that right you will keep getting the meaning wrong. I have already explained it and you are burying your head in the sand.
Yes - you are correct - the 1st ammendment prohibits an establishment of an official religion and prevents government from preferring one religion over another. Now you are getting the idea. This is why no law can prohibit the free exercise of religion. The banner being placed in the school in no way is "preferring" one religion over another. The banner states "our Heavenly Father". One may say that this prefers the set of religions that worship a God who is not physically on the Earth (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) as opposed to those religions that do not (Bhuddism, Confucianism, Atheism). However the banner does not prefer ONE particular religion. It's placement does not violate the establishment clause because it does not ban any other banner expressing another point of view to be placed. The right thing for the young lady to do would have been to place a banner that was themed on her religion: atheism. If the school protested then you would have an argument. This decison is a threat to free expression of ideas and religious faith which are both protected under our Constitution.
I find it hard to understand how anyone here can defend the young lady while at the same time say you are "upholding the law". Show me where in the Constitution it says that a religious themed mural cannot be in a public school? The First Ammendment sates that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". People who are hostile to people of faith love to trot out the First Ammendment yet always conveniently forget the part I italicised. The mural was has been there for 50 years. It is part of the school. Some insecure young lady should not have the power to force the removal of something that has historical value in the school. The only way the First Ammendment would have been violated is if the state had passed a law requiring the mural to be put up. It's simple presence which came from the free choice of the majority of students, faculty, and parents does not constitute an establishment of religion.
Anyone who supports the removal of the mural is the enemy of the First Ammendment. Stop twisting our Constitution to fit your own agendas.
Many of the theists do these kinds of public displays of faith hoping it will annoy and irritate atheists and followers of other religions. When a student complains about a Christian prayer mural that is displayed at their school, that is exactly what many Christians were going for. The prayer mural in this case was displayed as a tool of division and hatred for anyone that doesn't follow their same brand of idol worship.
Sco the banner has been there for over 50 years. I highly doubt it was placed to make a political point. The tool of division and hatred was this lawsuit - used to muzzle any free expression of worship with the purpose of making atheism the state religion.
Sco the banner has been there for over 50 years. I highly doubt it was placed to make a political point. The tool of division and hatred was this lawsuit - used to muzzle any free expression of worship with the purpose of making atheism the state religion.
You must be one of the naive people that I mentioned. Who cares if it has been there for 50 years, it was still designed to make a point of offending everyone that attended that school that was non-Christian.
It is like the annual stupidity over the Happy Holidays stuff. Most of the loudest complainers couldn't care less that a store clerk didn't say Merry Christmas to them, the real point is to continually reinforce their preconceived notion that Christianity is supposed to function as a defacto state religion in the US and shove their own personal brand of religion in everyone's face that doesn't share their same views of which sky daddy is the right one.
@gallowsCalibrator : You continue to use the incorrect definition of "respect" as used in the Establishment clause. Until you get that right you will keep getting the meaning wrong. I have already explained it and you are burying your head in the sand.
Because the dictionary is now wrong. Gotcha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Yes - you are correct - the 1st ammendment prohibits an establishment of an official religion and prevents government from preferring one religion over another.
First you say I'm burying my head in the sand, then saying I'm correct.
Interesting.
Quote:
This is why no law can prohibit the free exercise of religion. The banner being placed in the school in no way is "preferring" one religion over another. The banner states "our Heavenly Father". One may say that this prefers the set of religions that worship a God who is not physically on the Earth (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) as opposed to those religions that do not (Bhuddism, Confucianism, Atheism). However the banner does not prefer ONE particular religion.
But it's putting preference of religion over irreligion.
Quote:
It's placement does not violate the establishment clause because it does not ban any other banner expressing another point of view to be placed.
It shouldn't be there to begin with.
In a religious-based school, it'd be right at home. In public school? It's atrocious and a grave display of insecurity.
Quote:
The right thing for the young lady to do would have been to place a banner that was themed on her religion: atheism. If the school protested then you would have an argument. This decison is a threat to free expression of ideas and religious faith which are both protected under our Constitution.
Whereas, in the real world, if something is in a place it shouldn't be, it is either moved or removed.
Just because it's been there for 50 years means nothing. Numerous injustices have occurred over "long" periods of time, yet we (as a healthy forward-moving society) went against the trend to fix said injustices.
With the exception of private religious schools, religious belief as a belief has no place in school. As a teaching subject (i.e. literary works, history, religions of the world, etc) it is fine. In this manner? Disgusting.
Sco the banner has been there for over 50 years. I highly doubt it was placed to make a political point.
The intent 50 years ago is irrelevant. The Pentagon was designed to have segregated bathrooms, but we have moved beyond that.
Quote:
The tool of division and hatred was this lawsuit - used to muzzle any free expression of worship with the purpose of making atheism the state religion.
Publicly funded schools do not, as institutions, have any right to "free expression of worship". Individuals do.
Not that it matters, because even the Cranston School District knew better than arguing that prayer in school was hunky-dory. They chose the brilliant strategy of claiming that it wasn't a prayer at all. "We were hoping this banner would be viewed as a neutral, secular, historic display," Cavanagh said - Cavanagh being the school district's attorney.
The judge correctly pointed out that you can't start with "Our Heavenly Father" , end with "Amen", and claim it isn't a prayer.
The outpouring of Christian Love and Forgiveness over the young lady's head - now, that's pretty interesting. Apparently they did need a mural as a daily reminder to remain civil.
This is fine, as long as she is consistent and spends the rest of her life lashing out at everything that appears in the public realm that doesn't include her or have her in mind?
She's just another bitter atheist.
why assume she is bitter? there was nothing in the article that says she was bitter. one being an atheist or not does not make one bitter. get a grip
this young woman is just starting, not only does she stand behind what she believes, she takes action and is involved in her community. as Einstein's Ghost said many people don't do what she has already done at 80. She is a stellar young woman who can be and do anything she sets her mind to. perhaps even become POTUS one day
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.
