i guess at my age i am not going to get a lot smarter
So let me take a minute to assess where we are here...
How many people see no 1st Amendment problems with a school setting aside classroom space during normal school hours for students to pray?
I don't think we ever established it was "during normal school hours", and that's an important distinction.
and tres, if you really do believe that you're smarter than me, you don't have to keep making that point.
I have come in late to this thread, and am not exactly sure as to whom said what. Anyhow, here is MY take on this.
If a person is of a faith that requires praying during normal school hours, he should be attending a religious, not a public school. Setting aside a special place for prayer, in a tax funded school, is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Over the years religious Catholics have gone to Catholic schools. Religious Jews have gone to Yeshivas. There was NEVER a question of allowing a place set aside for them to pray in secular schools. Why now? Have we taken up the cause of "political correctness" up another notch, to the detriment of the Constitution?
Phoenix: i think (yes on occassion i do think) this issue is complicated by a prior issue of "in god we trust" placards mandated in public schools. that seemed to have been ok with many people, the implication being it is ok to have religious context in the public school as long as it is christian. while i am not speaking for snood, i do think that it is not ok and shows preferencial bias where none should exist. the use of school blds as a public facility (non school use)and without discrimination is another matter entirely.
dyslexia- Whenever I am in a place where the Pledge is recited, I say nothing when the words "under God" are recited.
phoenix: thats fine for you as an adult to have that option, however in a public school classroom with children of many faiths its another kettle of fish entirely. the specific laws in question mandate IN GOD WE TRUST placards to be placed in every classroom.
dys- Did not know about that. Yuk!
Been away for the last few days and missed this "in fighting." In my opinion Phoenix said it all. Freedom of religion means the ability to practice your religion without encumbrance. It does not mean the support of your or any other religion.
As usual religion raises it's ugly head and causes strife and dissension. Religion the poison mankind worships.
Too few of us - far too few - have acknowledged the instance of dys doing thinking (see above). I will not be part of this shameful ommission.
Here's a link that you all may find quite helpful in this discussion...
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17561
Tres
I really don't have a problem with allowing students space for prayer to god, allah, vishnu, hubbard or satan. The problems arise where a single faith is promoted (ten commandments posted, prayers before football, allowing a space for christian worship but not voodoo or satanism).
Although it will curl my toes to agree, or even seem to agree with Tress (:wink:), i would say that muslim parents who send their children to secular schools do not need to expect special arrangements made for their children for a religious purpose. The practice--allow me to repeat that, the practice of praying five times daily is not mandated by the Quran, and is a matter which adult muslims resolve in their own fashion as circumstances dictate. To excuse children to allow them to pray five times daily in a secular school is to make a special provision not accorded to others, and runs contrary to a separation of church and state, in that tax payers funds are used in support of a religious practice to which they may not adhere. I don't want my tax dollars (2% off the top to the city in which i reside) to be used for christian practices in schools in which the overwhelming majority of students are christian, and wouldn't want it used for any other religion's practices. I've seen muslims in Canada put a prayer rug out beside the garage in gas stations to pray, but they also do it off to the side, and take their turns, because they have a business to run. Being religious does not mean surrendering one's pragmatism, and living in a secular society does not mean expecting or receiving special consideration not afforded to others. This can all be rationalized effectively, such as Jews working on Christmas and Easter, while their Christian counterparts take up the slack for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hoshanna--similar arragements can accomodate the observance of Ramadan. But the distinction is that neither your nor my tax money is involved in such arrangements, accomodations made between reasonable adults. I still consider it unfair to allot either time or facilities to accomodate religious practice in secular schools.
dyslexia wrote:Phoenix: i think (yes on occassion i do think) this issue is complicated by a prior issue of "in god we trust" placards mandated in public schools. that seemed to have been ok with many people, the implication being it is ok to have religious context in the public school as long as it is christian.
I don't recall anyone making that claim. The argument I did make was that the word "God" is a general term referring to (as St. Anselm wrote) "that, than which no greater can exist". Now, you may think I am wrong and that the word "God" refers specifically and only to a Christian or Judeo-Christian God, but that does not mean I made any claim that "it is ok to have religious context in the public school as long as it is christian".
So, either you are misrepresenting my position on this point, or you were referring to someone else. If the latter, can you provide me with a quote of what was written and by whom?
dyslexia wrote:phoenix: thats fine for you as an adult to have that option, however in a public school classroom with children of many faiths its another kettle of fish entirely. the specific laws in question mandate IN GOD WE TRUST placards to be placed in every classroom.
Let's be clear here that this is a COLORADO STATE LAW (proposed? passed? I'm not sure.). This is not a federal proposal.
Very interesting. The article seems to come down to this as the proffered
bone of contention:
Quote:What is new in these guidelines (and likely to stir debate) concerns student speech at school-sponsored functions such as graduation, assembly programs or athletic events. The courts have been divided on where schools may draw the line on student-initiated religious speech in those settings. But the guidelines take the position that schools may not restrict students' religious (or anti-religious) speech if student speakers are selected by "genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria" and students retain control over the content of their expression.
Anyone want to comment on this? (Certainly seems to uphold the intent of the 1st Amendment to me.)
tres: paranoia strikes deep:
Quote:So, either you are misrepresenting my position on this point, or you were referring to someone else. If the latter, can you provide me with a quote of what was written and by whom?
my reference is to the people that propose and support such legislation.
Setanta -- I think you've clarified the issue beautifully.
dyslexia wrote:tres: paranoia strikes deep:
Quote:So, either you are misrepresenting my position on this point, or you were referring to someone else. If the latter, can you provide me with a quote of what was written and by whom?
my reference is to the people that propose and support such legislation.
You have yet to offer any evidence that
anyone anywhere thinks this is okay because they think it is okay to promote Christianity (as you claim) rather than that they believe "God" is a general term and not given to linkage with any specific religion. (Whether you were in fact refering to me or anyone in this discussion or neither does not change the fact that you have not supported the claim.)
And once again for anyone who just joined us: I am not in favor of this mandate. My position regarding same is simply that I have seen nothing in the constitution of Colorado that prohibits a general reference to "God" in a public building.
tres offers (i think) the proposition that the phrase "IN God WE TRUST" is generic to all religons
Quote:they believe "God" is a general term and not given to linkage with any specific religion.
so lets start with the process of elimination as see where we get. G-d" is the way that god is written out in Judaism. It is considered blasphemous to spell out the name of god, so the hyphen is inserted. We can eliminate Judaism as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " G-d". We can eliminate Islam as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " Allah". Deism believes in an impersonal god that is spelled with a lowercase "g". We can eliminate deism and related religions as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " god". Paganism, Shamanism, Wicca or similar religions use "goddess" or the proper names of individual goddesses. Earth-based religions would not call "Mother Earth" such a sexist term as "God". We can eliminate Paganism and related religions as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " Goddess" or " Mother Earth". Hinduism talks about the "gods" or uses the specific and proper name of the incarnation of Vishnu, depending on what sect you are referring to. What does that leave? What religion spells god with a capital G? Christianity is the religion that spells their concept of god with a capital G and is not blasphemous to spell it out.
A sign saying "In God We Trust" offends me because it means captive audiences are being propagandized into believing that some superstitious belief is thing is responsiblefor the world.
dyslexia wrote:tres offers (i think) the proposition that the phrase "IN God WE TRUST" is generic to all religons
Quote:they believe "God" is a general term and not given to linkage with any specific religion.
so lets start with the process of elimination as see where we get. G-d" is the way that god is written out in Judaism. It is considered blasphemous to spell out the name of god, so the hyphen is inserted. We can eliminate Judaism as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " G-d". We can eliminate Islam as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " Allah". Deism believes in an impersonal god that is spelled with a lowercase "g". We can eliminate deism and related religions as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " god". Paganism, Shamanism, Wicca or similar religions use "goddess" or the proper names of individual goddesses. Earth-based religions would not call "Mother Earth" such a sexist term as "God". We can eliminate Paganism and related religions as the endorsed or sponsored religion because the phrase is not " Goddess" or " Mother Earth". Hinduism talks about the "gods" or uses the specific and proper name of the incarnation of Vishnu, depending on what sect you are referring to. What does that leave? What religion spells god with a capital G? Christianity is the religion that spells their concept of god with a capital G and is not blasphemous to spell it out.
Quote:god
Definition 1. in various mythologies such as those of Greece and Rome, a being believed to have supernatural powers and therefore worshiped, esp. a male deity believed to control some part of nature or life in the world.
Crossref. Syn. hero , celestial , immortal
Definition 2. (cap.) the omnipotent and omniscient being that is worshiped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the creator and ruler of the universe. Definition 3. a physical image or representation of a supernatural being; idol.
Crossref. Syn. idol
Definition 4. something that is considered to be of the greatest importance and thus, in effect, worshiped.
Example Has money always been his god?
Crossref. Syn. idol
Definition 5. a man of exceptional physical beauty.
But again, the real issue is whether or not this stupid law is legal under the Constitution of Colorado, and NOBODY seems to be arguing that it is not.
