|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 20, 2014 21:39:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2014 23:10:16 GMT -5
Having a good pee in the morning makes my whole day go so much better. It's even More better when I have an audience.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 20, 2014 23:17:11 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 11:45:36 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 12:19:45 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it... Wally ~ Ditto! Honestly, I can see no problem in young folks joining hand in hand in circle in private prayer before a game. Perhaps over the loud speaker was not in order due to the ban in effect under the laws of the land, but I can see no problem with private prayer as an individual or in a small group before a game. Obviously, the people who joined in from the crowd at the game felt the same way, too? Honestly, whatever happened to "freedom of speech" within this country to the point that anybody invoking God's blessing in prayer, whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, before a game on school property is considered offensive these days?
All I can say is that some people need to just get over themselves when they take things to such extremes and institute such bans on "freedom of expression" today! How would they like it if the tables were turned on their own freedom to voice their opinion as atheists in a negative way against theists and such became the law of the land? Just wondering how they might respond in kind to such a ridiculous ruling in reverse?
Personally, I feel it has nothing to do with violation of church and state as much as it has to do with a "power play" back in time sponsored by an outspoken atheist in the early 1960's by the name of Madalyn Murray O'Hair? She was considered one of the most hated women in America back in the 1960's and associated in her death with the evil queen, Jezebel, in the Old Testament who was slain by the hands of her own servants, after her numerous efforts to stamp out any mention of God. How ironic that fellow atheists who worked with her were found guilty of her death in the end, too?
www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel
www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Sept 21, 2014 13:35:07 GMT -5
Having a good pee in the morning makes my whole day go so much better. It's even More better when I have an audience. Bob start worrying when you can't ken
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Sept 21, 2014 13:37:44 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
DMG Do you really believe you are in the minority? So you are complaing becase you feel you are paying for it. I just don't understand some of the things you say! ken
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 14:33:59 GMT -5
Whatever happened to the Christian concept of praying in secret? This is a good example, imo, of self-centered, self-aggrandizing Christian exhibitionism.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 14:41:47 GMT -5
Whatever happened to the Christian concept of praying in secret? This is a good example, imo, of self-centered, self-aggrandizing Christian exhibitionism. Matisse ~ Perhaps the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion should be considered here, too, along with the Bill of Rights protecting all of our basic freedoms in the first ten of these amendments? I would feel that freedom to pray in public would be covered as well under this first amendment to our Constitution, which protects the religious rights of all ~ not just Christians, but other groups and religious affiliations? Although the Supreme Court may have overruled in this area back in 1963 involving the petition filed by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, I feel you cannot deny they were part of the original Constitution drafted by our American forefathers to protect our basic rights as individuals under government in the area of freedom of speech and religion?
billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/headlines/freedom-of-religion/
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 14:57:18 GMT -5
Whatever happened to the Christian concept of praying in secret? This is a good example, imo, of self-centered, self-aggrandizing Christian exhibitionism. Matisse ~ Perhaps the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion should be considered here, too, along with the Bill of Rights protecting freedom of speech? I would feel that freedom to pray in public would be covered as well under this first amendment to our Constitution, which protects the religious rights of all ~ not just Christians, but other groups and religious affiliations.
billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/headlines/freedom-of-religion/
This goes beyond, and in a publicly funded school setting. Would you expect a Jewish or Muslim kid to feel welcome on the cheerleading squad? Does that matter to you?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 15:19:33 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Perhaps the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion should be considered here, too, along with the Bill of Rights protecting freedom of speech? I would feel that freedom to pray in public would be covered as well under this first amendment to our Constitution, which protects the religious rights of all ~ not just Christians, but other groups and religious affiliations.
billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/headlines/freedom-of-religion/
This goes beyond, and in a publicly funded school setting. Would you expect a Jewish or Muslim kid to feel welcome on the cheerleading squad? Does that matter to you? I doubt most kids in public schools today would actually discriminate against another due to their race or religion like they did back in the 1960's and before? I feel we have come a long ways since then! If a Jewish or Muslim kid wanted to get involved in sports, I don't think it would be a problem in public schools today, in which there is far more tolerance of race and religion than was evident back in the 1960's or earlier within this country?
However, what I'm talking about here is "freedom of speech" and right to peaceful assembly in a public place, which now has become a major issue in most schools due to this Supreme Court ruling back in 1963 sponsored by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Also, people fund a lot of things by their Federal tax dollars that they may not agree with, too, but have little control or say over what Congress does with their money, when all is said and done. As an example, I can't help but think of George W. Bush's Administration illegal funding an unauthorized war in Iraq because of bogus intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" rumored to have existed? But, that's another story where many lives were lost on both sides due to an illegal war we had no business getting involved with in the first place.
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody to have a moment of silent prayer or peaceful gathering before a game by invoking God's protection over the players?
www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 15:27:12 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
DMG Do you really believe you are in the minority? So you are complaing becase you feel you are paying for it. I just don't understand some of the things you say! ken Ken, It doesn't matter whether I am the one in the minority, or someone else who is of some other religion than the Christian majority is in the minority
People in the "minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority."
Maybe this can help you understand some of the things I say! Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.
For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. "
For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament member.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 21, 2014 15:30:47 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
[/quote some just don't understands the concept of democracy !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 15:33:22 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it... Do you mean as long as the the minority voluntarily allows the majority to trample on their rights, you are " good with it?"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 15:36:48 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
[/quote some just don't understands the concept of democracy ! No they don't! Reread what I posted.Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 15:41:45 GMT -5
I doubt most kids in public schools today would actually discriminate against another due to their race or religion like they did back in the 1960's and before? I feel we have come a long ways since then! If a Jewish or Muslim kid wanted to get involved in sports, I don't think it would be a problem in public schools today, in which there is far more tolerance of race and religion than was evident back in the 1960's or earlier within this country?
However, what I'm talking about here is "freedom of speech" and right to peaceful assembly in a public place, which now has become a major issue in most schools due to this Supreme Court ruling back in 1963 sponsored by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Also, people fund a lot of things by their Federal tax dollars that they may not agree with, too, but have little control or say over what Congress does with their money, when all is said and done. As an example, I can't help but think of George W. Bush's Administration illegal funding an unauthorized war in Iraq because of bogus intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" rumored to have existed? But, that's another story where many lives were lost on both sides due to an illegal war we had no business getting involved with in the first place. :P
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody to have a moment of silent prayer or peaceful gathering before a game by invoking God's protection over the players? O_o
www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx
"Honestly" I would have no problem with a moment of SILENCE. A Christian prayer broadcast over a PA system week in and week out in a public school setting is a problem. Taking it off the PA system is only a marginal improvement. I wouldn't presume open-mindedness in predominantly evangelical or fundamentalist Christian communities.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 15:44:31 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable? some just don't understands the concept of democracy ! W. Tell ~ Especially the concept of democracy as outlined in the Bill of Rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, with special attention given to the First Amendment in regards to freedom of religion and peaceful assembly! Perhaps they just choose to ignore it due to their own prejudices towards people's religious beliefs in general?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I agree with your conclusion regarding reciting the Lord's Prayer over the loud speaker system, which I felt was in poor taste, too. However, I have no problem with cheerleaders gathering in a huddle before a game to pray for the safety of the players during the game. To make a major issue out of this in the national media I feel is way out of line and a major violation of the right for peaceful assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed under the Bill of the Rights found within the Constitution. I also noticed that many of the spectators within the crowd also joined in prayer themselves, which speaks for itself concerning how people feel about this infringement on their basic rights. JMT
Matisse shared...
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 15:54:57 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I agree with your conclusion regarding the prayer over the loud speaker system, which I felt was in poor taste, too. However, I have no problem with cheerleaders gathering in a huddle before a game to pray for the safety of the players during the game. To make a major issue out of this in the national media I feel is way out of proportion and a major violation of the right for peaceful assembly guaranteed under the Bill of the Rights found within the Constitution. I also noticed that many of the spectators within the crowd also joined in prayer themselves, which speaks for itself concerning how people feel about this infringement on their basic rights. JMT
Matisse shared...
It is about who gets marginalized. As dimmichgood said, "the tyranny of the majority." It's also about it taking place on public school grounds.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 16:02:45 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it... Do you mean as long as the the minority voluntarily allows the majority to trample on their rights, you are " good with it?" DMG ~ I feel you are taking this to the extreme in your posts when you refer to Christians supposedly trampling on the rights of atheists by saying a prayer for the players in a group of cheerleaders before a game? I think the element of offense probably is more along the lines of personal prejudice than anything else? After all, that's what sparked the Supreme Court decision back in 1963 to begin with and it wasn't backed up by the majority of the people either, IMHO? As Madalyn Murray O'Hair's evil intent was testified to by her own estranged son in a TV interview later, she knew what she was doing and took pleasure in trampling on people's rights, including those of her own children!
www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 16:08:15 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I agree with your conclusion regarding the prayer over the loud speaker system, which I felt was in poor taste, too. However, I have no problem with cheerleaders gathering in a huddle before a game to pray for the safety of the players during the game. To make a major issue out of this in the national media I feel is way out of proportion and a major violation of the right for peaceful assembly guaranteed under the Bill of the Rights found within the Constitution. I also noticed that many of the spectators within the crowd also joined in prayer themselves, which speaks for itself concerning how people feel about this infringement on their basic rights. JMT
Matisse shared...
It is about who gets marginalized. As dimmichgood said, "the tyranny of the majority." It's also about it taking place on public school grounds. Matisse & DMG ~ Sorry, but I don't see people being marginalized by peaceful assembly and a group prayer before a game, whether it be on a public school ground or elsewhere? It's more like the minority exercising tyranny over the majority who didn't approve of this Supreme Court decision in the first place and made it well known within the media! Just check back in history and you will see what I mean? Madalyn Murray O'Hair became one of the most hated atheists in America due to her actions and created quite a stir in the media for years to come!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 16:34:35 GMT -5
Having a good pee in the morning makes my whole day go so much better. It's even More better when I have an audience. Bob start worrying when you can't ken You mean that if I can't make people hear me pray, that God won't answer my prayers?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 16:35:46 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it... Wally ~ Ditto! Honestly, I can see no problem in young folks joining hand in hand in circle in private prayer before a game. Perhaps over the loud speaker was not in order due to the ban in effect under the laws of the land, but I can see no problem with private prayer as an individual or in a small group before a game. Obviously, the people who joined in from the crowd at the game felt the same way, too? Honestly, whatever happened to "freedom of speech" within this country to the point that anybody invoking God's blessing in prayer, whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, before a game on school property is considered offensive these days?
All I can say is that some people need to just get over themselves when they take things to such extremes and institute such bans on "freedom of expression" today! How would they like it if the tables were turned on their own freedom to voice their opinion as atheists in a negative way against theists and such became the law of the land? Just wondering how they might respond in kind to such a ridiculous ruling in reverse?
Faune, would you really see it as no problem if those young folks joining hand in hand in circle in private prayer were Jewish, or Muslim?
How about if the they were Druidry, a form of modern spirituality or religion?
Do you really find our Constitution and Bill of Rights a "ridiculous ruling?"
You seem as well as the people who joined in from the crowd at the game felt the same way, too?
How would Christians like it if they were to become the minority and the tables were turned on their own freedom to voice their opinion as theists?
Christians may think that could never happen, but if Christians should have the tables turned on them, you don't think that you would hear them yelling louder than Madalyn Murray O'Hair?
How does Madalyn Murray O'Hair's personal life & death enter into this discussion?
Was the fact that she was killed by atheists the factor or was it that they were criminals?
Isn't there any Christian leaders who you can compare to whose life & death equals hers?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 16:36:32 GMT -5
And so once again, we have the majority trampling on the minority and we, the tax payers paying for their trampling.
That is laudable?
DMG Do you really believe you are in the minority? So you are complaing becase you feel you are paying for it. I just don't understand some of the things you say! ken It's a publicly run facility, open to the public. That means we ALL pay.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 16:44:05 GMT -5
as long as its voluntary i'm good with it... Wally ~ Ditto! Honestly, I can see no problem in young folks joining hand in hand in circle in private prayer before a game. Perhaps over the loud speaker was not in order due to the ban in effect under the laws of the land, but I can see no problem with private prayer as an individual or in a small group before a game. Obviously, the people who joined in from the crowd at the game felt the same way, too? Honestly, whatever happened to "freedom of speech" within this country to the point that anybody invoking God's blessing in prayer, whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, before a game on school property is considered offensive these days?
All I can say is that some people need to just get over themselves when they take things to such extremes and institute such bans on "freedom of expression" today! How would they like it if the tables were turned on their own freedom to voice their opinion as atheists in a negative way against theists and such became the law of the land? Just wondering how they might respond in kind to such a ridiculous ruling in reverse?
Personally, I feel it has nothing to do with violation of church and state as much as it has to do with a "power play" back in time sponsored by an outspoken atheist in the early 1960's by the name of Madalyn Murray O'Hair? She was considered one of the most hated women in America back in the 1960's and associated in her death with the evil queen, Jezebel, in the Old Testament who was slain by the hands of her own servants, after her numerous efforts to stamp out any mention of God. How ironic that fellow atheists who worked with her were found guilty of her death in the end, too?
www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel
www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/
Faune. You're entirely right. The ONLY reason they wanted the microphone was to impose it on everyone present. We had the same discussion at the high school I taught at. I was the one who convinced them that they had the right to pray at school (surprise to most people who know how I feel about praying in public), but I told them how to do it without getting in trouble. Two days later I arrived at school to see a large prayer circle in front of the school, doing their thing. Not one person paid any attention to them, and the vice principal (who by the way had listened in on my whole 105 minute lesson on the matter in Political Science class) was standing there making sure it all went correctly. Interesting thing was, they never had another such prayer circle again. If it was so necessary for them personally, what happened that they didn't continue it? Everyone else had the option of ignoring them, that's why. It was all for attention.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 16:56:25 GMT -5
I doubt most kids in public schools today would actually discriminate against another due to their race or religion like they did back in the 1960's and before?
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody Whether you doubt it or not, that original FOX news site indicated it was the YOUNG PEOPLE.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 17:03:31 GMT -5
I doubt most kids in public schools today would actually discriminate against another due to their race or religion like they did back in the 1960's and before? I feel we have come a long ways since then! If a Jewish or Muslim kid wanted to get involved in sports, I don't think it would be a problem in public schools today, in which there is far more tolerance of race and religion than was evident back in the 1960's or earlier within this country?
However, what I'm talking about here is "freedom of speech" and right to peaceful assembly in a public place, which now has become a major issue in most schools due to this Supreme Court ruling back in 1963 sponsored by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Also, people fund a lot of things by their Federal tax dollars that they may not agree with, too, but have little control or say over what Congress does with their money, when all is said and done. As an example, I can't help but think of George W. Bush's Administration illegal funding an unauthorized war in Iraq because of bogus intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" rumored to have existed? But, that's another story where many lives were lost on both sides due to an illegal war we had no business getting involved with in the first place.
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody to have a moment of silent prayer or peaceful gathering before a game by invoking God's protection over the players?
www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx
Historically the school system in the US was a Protestant sectarian system supported by public funds. School books described Catholicism as an evil that would undermine Christian culture and destroy the country. Catholic children on occasion were banned from public schools. It was a long and bitter struggle by religious minorities (including Catholics) to be able to send their children to school without being required to be in attendance for Protestant indoctrination exercises. As is typical in all human rights equalizations, the people who have to yield to the civil rights of others resent that fact for generations after. Of course they lost, but they can't accept that the legal advantage they exercised over others was neither Christian nor democratic -- it was a selfish and greedy quest for power.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 17:16:46 GMT -5
Do you mean as long as the the minority voluntarily allows the majority to trample on their rights, you are " good with it?" DMG ~ I feel you are taking this to the extreme in your posts when you refer to Christians supposedly trampling on the rights of atheists by saying a prayer for the players in a group of cheerleaders before a game? I think the element of offense probably is more along the lines of personal prejudice than anything else? After all, that's what sparked the Supreme Court decision back in 1963 to begin with and it wasn't backed up by the majority of the people either, IMHO? As Madalyn Murray O'Hair's evil intent was testified to by her own estranged son in a TV interview later, she knew what she was doing and took pleasure in trampling on people's rights, including those of her own children!
www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/
Faune, I agree that the element of offense is personal prejudice, which isn't a matter that can be legislated away. But individuals have a right to protection from the products of prejudice, which are indeed the sin in a democracy. And the imposition on an individual of a religious exercise is a violation of that individual's right to freedom of religion. Unfortunately, in this country, it is the only way to keep the public school system from reverting to the Protestant sectarian system it was for many years. If Protestant Christians (sorry, but that's exactly where the problem came from) had not discriminated so harshly against others in the public school system for so long, we may never have come to this point. A bit of tolerance on all sides is quite tolerable. But as long as people (especially majorities) begin to treat others' tolerance of them as their (the majority) right and privilege to take advantage of, then you have lost your democracy. Minorities in this country know that none of their civil rights are guaranteed except through the courts.
|
|