<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand the discussion these 2 things are not tied together. Many religious people take both sides of these issues. </p>
<p>The justice being replaced, Sandra Day O’Connor, was conflicted on the abortion issue. Would she be qualified to sit on the court if nominated today? Are those 2 issues a litmus test for sitting on the court? I guess from your perspective it is okay if you are not considered a conservative christian.</p>
<p>dmd,</p>
<p>
Not by law, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court in the decision involving the Jehovahs Witnesses specific refusal to do sowhich was affirmed by the court.</p>
<p>
Assuredly you see the speciousness of your proposal?! Of course it would be rude to intentionally ridicule the beliefs of others by mocking themI would also find it offensive to make a mockery of homosexuals amongst other minority social behavior. </p>
<p>I believe we would all hope that any responsible parent would take fundingfathers advise regarding their sons (and daughters) in either of the examples I sited and whack him on the back of his head for showing such little class and respect for other’s.</p>
<p>Surely you feel the same way dmd?</p>
<p>Woodwork, I know that as a teacher I have been told I have no choice but to lead students in the Pledge. They haven’t said “or else you’ll be fired” but certainly the implication is there. I’m sure the ACLU would be delighted to take that to court again, but let’s get real. Students don’t have to say it, teachers don’t have to say it, but ask any principal if it’s part of the job, and they’ll say yes.</p>
<p>As for my son’s prayer to the flying spaghetti monster, allow me to assure you that for some of us the FSM is just as real as other people’s god. (Yes, I am an atheist.) So no, I have to say again that mandated prayer, or student-led prayer of any kind, is offensive in schools. Schools are not churches and should not be expected to be. You’d be offended by an FSM prayer; a Muslim might be offended by a Christian prayer; an Hawaiian might offend someone with his prayer to Pele… it goes on and on. Why don’t we just skip it? </p>
<p>If a public school my son (or daughter) attended started mandating in-school prayer, I would indeed expect my son or daughter to step up and make it clear that <em>mandated</em> prayer respects no one’s beliefs.</p>
<p>Oh wait, my D did attend a private school with regular chapel. She and a friend led a chapel discussion on atheism. But she didn’t include a prayer as part of it. She left that up to the school chaplain. </p>
<p>Note that so-called voluntary prayer is often not voluntary–as pointed out above, student-led prayer is often about identifying the non-believers.</p>
<p>dmd,</p>
<p>It never fails that it is always an enthusiastic atheist, of either the soft or hard persuasion, who gets into high dudgeon over offending the delicate sensitivities of those poor religious Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and, as you say, worshipers of Pele. I would guess that here, as always, none of those who are actually Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus or worshipers of Pele are in fact the ones moaning and whining about being offended; Im starting to worry that atheists will become hopelessly frustrated with all of us off-color theists for not being sufficiently offended; well become inoperable props in their anti-religious propagandawell be of no use to such brave-new-world satirists and our currency with liberals will plummet. </p>
<p>As to your guffawing mockery in comparing sincere religious devotions to praying to the flying spaghetti monster, it had probably not occurred to you to consider that in a school full of students from different backgrounds you would not be able to restrict such ill-mannered mockery to those ignorant Christians but would likely offend us religious (and equally ignorant?) Hindus, Muslims and worshipers of Pele that you and others seem to be so concerned about not offendingwe pray too, you know and in the case of Muslims its a mandatory 5 times a day [wow!]; youd have to be really careful that none of our children were in ear-shot while engaging in such hateful mockery of divine devotionsthe caricature is universalif you want to maintain your compassionate liberalism, political correctness and curious hope to live in a milqtoast democracy rather than a vibrant one that is enriched by the real difference in diversity.</p>
<p>Moreover, as I suggested earlier, what if we were discussing some other minority predilection, would you feel as free to mock them and their deeply held feelings as you seem to be so anxious to with young religious Christians? How about if ones son compares a sexual perversion (I wont mention any particular one) with homosexuality in front on a young and openly gay student (probably more people engaged in illicit perversions than there are worshipers of Pele). Where will one draw the line with such hateful mockery and derision? </p>
<p>Im very concerned to hear these sorts of comments from a teacher; I dont suppose this predisposition ever surfaces in front of your studentsat least I sincerely hope it doesnt: for the sake of the students themselves and the respect your position demands.</p>
<p>Woodwork, maybe the problem is that We agnostics, atheists, different believers are sick and tired of being the ones singled out and we are tired of feeling like WE don’t belong in this society of religious people, no matter of what faith. I do not discriminate, I dislike and don’t trust all organized religions equally. From the moment any “great” soul arrived on earth and many actually have had beautiful ideas, others following them have taken these great ideas and massacred them. To a religion, once you get the followers writing books you see the power trip starting until the later ideas become institutionalized practically obscuring the original wonderful one. I also notice not many woman’s ideas have ever started a world wide religion, as their ideas would probably not have been taken seriously.
Most religions endorse sexual discrimination and, as followed on earth by mere mortals, become tools to control people, even to the point of starting wars and killing others. I really love some of the original ideas, but I can’t see Jesus discriminating about gays, he I would think, would turn the other cheek and accept peoples differences. . Then in the Catholic religion later mortals would decide that priests should not marry (there has been talk Jesus was married). How could they think that was a good idea? I can’t imagine Jesus had that in mind.
Most books written later in a religion’s life very often ruined whatever beautiful thoughts were originally there. It probably is too darn hard on earth to live the idealized ways anyway, so it is easier just to say three Hail Mary’s or bless Moses or whatever you say in the different organized religions than really try to follow the original ideolized ideas. Hell, it’s far easier to pray than really work hard to live the “right way” and love EVERYONE, not just like minded individuals.
Whenever you turn on the TV the Religious sermons, news etc are on. You can not escape them in this country…whether it’s political pontifications on news shows by unelected religious leaders or just sermons on every TV mount, we are doused by their thoughts, so alien to many of ours. AND I say here and now, many of my non religious friends are far far more moral than many self proclaimed religious people. It is so annoying to see the country now taken over by supposedly religious and “pious” people who seem to be indicted more and more every day. Can you fault us from being so “damn” sick of it all. Those really pious people who would live like Jesus would not be screaming it from the hilltops and in Congress. They would quietly try to improve everyone else life, in service EVEN to the poor and downtrodden and ill. Compassionate conservativism doesn’t really exist.
Also lest you all accuse me of being biased only against the Christians, those are the people now trying to legislate my life and take over MY country. If I lived in Afganistan I’d be bucking against the Taliban and the Muslims, but they’re not trying to take over my country…for now and most other religions are only trying to survive the takeover by one minority religion. That is NOT what the founders of this country had in mind. They ran away from other countries for just that reason!
(Roger, please don’t remove this just because you don’t like the ideas. I’m as annoyed by convervative’s ideas as you are by the non religious ideas. That’s the point of the melting pot of America. We all have valid ideas that often annoy the hell out of others, but we are still free to discuss them…loudly if we so desire.)</p>
<p>“It never fails that it is always an enthusiastic atheist, of either the soft or hard persuasion, who gets into high dudgeon over offending the delicate sensitivities of those poor religious Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and, as you say, worshipers of Pele”</p>
<p>It is precisely attitudes like this that make some of us feawrful. Woodwork seems to feel that, if one does not agree with opposing views, just ridicule or mock them. </p>
<p>I suppose that’s why we have a Constitution and a Supreme court - to protect minority views and practices from the tyranny of a majority (don’t worry, it’s OK Jonny. Just leave the room. We’ll check in with you at recess, in the back of the playground…)</p>
<p>As the parent of a daughter who received antisemitic comments in second grade (good old Texas!), I can tell you from experience that these things DO matter.</p>
<p>Laura certainly put some of my views nicely. As for the offensiveness of prayer, I am not offended by any person’s private prayer, regardless of place or time. What I am offended by is the idea of mandated prayer. The question I have attempted to ask is: “whose prayer will we require if we bring prayer back into the schools?” And if that answer isn’t “everyone’s prayer” someone has been excluded.</p>
<p>So I ask again, those of you who support prayer in the schools and public religion, whose prayer do you want included? And if it’s a vague generic prayer, is that actually worthwhile? And if it’s a Christian prayer, what happens to the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics during that prayer?</p>
<p>dmd, you appear to have morphed this discussion from voluntary prayers by students/football players to the issue of mandatory school prayers. As a reminder this is what you said:
This quote tells me that you are not only against official school prayer (which I happen to agree with you) but also against voluntary prayers by football players. And, then you think it perfectly acceptable for your son to mock people participating in voluntary prayer. I say that your son would be as guilty of low class, moronic behavior in such circumstances as would the praying football player if he mocked your son’s atheism.</p>
<p>Actually Funding father, this is a discussion of Harriet Miers and the death of secularism. So any prayer that is highlighted, whether silent or very noisy and organized, shows the death of secularism and the intrusion of a religion in everyone’s everyday life. If you look like you don’t pray…while others look down silently praying…it outs you as a non-believer, which in many parts of supposed “welcoming” country dooms your inclusion in many things. Should we just look like we’re praying and stay in the closet?</p>
<p>I’m trying to figure out how a football player praying relates to the death of secularism. Anyone viewing American life over any length of time could not possibly think that “secularism” is under assault. Rather, it is religion that is under assault and has been in retreat for the last 50 years. All you have to do is look at the posts of DMD and yourself - not being content with the elimination of mandatory prayer in public schools, you are now setting your sights on voluntary prayer. </p>
<p>Yet, somehow the reluctance by religious people to accede to your viewpoint equates to “the death of secularism”. Very interesting perspective - but certainly consistent with the self-centered view that tolerance should be observed by all - except when it is the case of an atheist mocking a person’s religious faith.</p>
<p>FF: I think the current situation in the public schools is just fine. I worry, however, that we’re going to see it reversed–and that’s what I’ve been talking about.</p>
<p>dmd, that does not seem to have been your view when you first jumped into this since you cited voluntary public prayers by football players and then echoed Laura’s views which are certainly not accepting of the status quo. You also seem perfectly accepting of a son who would openly mock another person’s religious belief - seemingly justifying that behavior because someone would have the audacity of praying in front of him.</p>
<p>Actually this is not a discussion of prayer in school. I don’t even think that’s half as important as my tax money going to religious organizations, nor the government, including the supreme court going religious. That is scary…prayer in school is nothing.
But I do wonder if both teams pray how is God supposed to figure out who should win??
I do truly believe (well…it’s really my Phd husband that brought this up over lunch) that with the death of secularism, you have the death of rational thought. And that is even scarier. Should everything, including our government and our educational systems really be a leap of faith??</p>
<p>So, to which period of the US history would you and your PhD husband want to revert? Clearly you are troubled with today’s perspective on secularism, but at which point in the past represents the ideal?</p>
<p>BTW, this is at least the second time that you have referred to your “PhD” husband. Why is that? If you are trying to impress us with some indisputable source for your thoughts - sort of a “Laura’s brain”, it doesn’t work. PhD’s are a dime a dozen and having one doesn’t make one’s thoughts any more valid than those without one.</p>
<p>When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they were concerned about the freedom of all religion. These deeply religious men did not intend our society to be secular. Separation of church and state does not mean “the death of religion” as some would have it.</p>
<p>Though I am unfamiliar with secularism ever having died historically, the world does have some experience with theism having been killedover about a third+ of the earth in fact: Maoist China, Stalinist USSR and their combined satellite states. </p>
<p>Many fled these places for the safety of this place ultimately to hear much of the same rhetoric.</p>
<p>Still, as it turned out and as history has shown, as soon as common norms of behavioramongst regular peoplewere able to return when the atheistic states receded into the dust heaps of history (as they were fond of saying)in for instance Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungrythe people themselves began to readdress their spiritual heritage, even after years of being taught by both Stalin and Mao that religion was just ignorant superstition, racist xenophobia, and not sufficiently keeping with the program, in short, it was not progressive enough. Not progressive enoughit has a ring to it that just keeps on ringing. </p>
<p>There is an elitism to much of the religious bashing. Few common people are decrying the death of secularismunion members, farmers, construction and service workers. It always seems to be something those in the vanguard wish to foist upon those simply living their ordinary lives in their faith.</p>
<p>Thankfully, Stalin and Mao and their cronies are gone; though their beliefs and attitudes, as they apply to the beliefs of the common folk, seem to live on.</p>
<p>And . . . how does this apply to whether Harriet Miers is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?</p>
<p>It is precisely attitudes like this that make some of us fearful. Woodwork seems to feel that, if one does not agree with opposing views, just ridicule or mock them. </p>
<p>From Newmassdad’s post.</p>
<p>Obviously Funding Father also feels he must ridicule and mock others.
When I indicated the PhD (statistics)…I was merely emphasizing that he is mired in rational thought DAILY, so he would notice the death of rational thought.
Personally we don’t wish to resort to any other point in history…unlike the conservative or other religious leaders, who would like us to go back a century …When they government didn’t have to help the poor and the New Deal was not here yet. We like it now and have no wish to be taken back by the conservative! I have no idea where you got the idea we wanted to go back in history. We certainly haven’t reached the ideal yet…and at the rate we’re going probably never will! We are mere mortals and all flawed. Religion makes sure we always will be “us versus them” and that makes it harder for us ever to reach the stage of love for every other person on the planet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a blanket statement that shows a clear bias against any religion. Religion does not make sure those things will happen, it is the inappropriate interpretations of some of the followers of certain religions. Similar to certain secular humanists that have differing opinions on a whole range of issues.</p>
<p>Sorry Eagle, but what religion thinks another religion is as “right” as their religion??? Did I miss one? I can just image Bush saying I’m Christian but those Muslim are right in their beliefs as well. NOR can I imagine that vice versa. Even the different sects of Christianity all think they have the one right path to God and salvation.Where have I been that I missed that acceptance?</p>