[Liberator]

Just my 2 cents and I'm out of this thread as I'm tired of arguing my position and beliefs with people who won't come down off they're high horses and actually attend a service or three and actually get to know the people involved before they throw them to the wolves for being a bunch of nutjobs with no "proper" understanding of how the world works.

From what I've read in this thread you are not separating the events into they're proper context.  Typically, if a prayer is offered either by a student or an official, it happens BEFORE the curriculum.  It is not offered as part of the class lesson plans or talked about in general unless brought up through the natural course of the lesson.  Also, what most of you seem to have forgotten is that a large portion of the population is not offended by prayer.  A prayer is simply a spoken or thought request that God, by whatever name you call him, look favorably upon whatever is being prayed about and intercede to the benefit of those that the prayer was made by or for.  If you are not a believer then the prayer is meaningless to you and should be taken as such. 

I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds.  It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.

[Ghostavo]

From what I've read in this thread you are not separating the events into they're proper context.  Typically, if a prayer is offered either by a student or an official, it happens BEFORE the curriculum.  It is not offered as part of the class lesson plans or talked about in general unless brought up through the natural course of the lesson.  Also, what most of you seem to have forgotten is that a large portion of the population is not offended by prayer.  A prayer is simply a spoken or thought request that God, by whatever name you call him, look favorably upon whatever is being prayed about and intercede to the benefit of those that the prayer was made by or for.  If you are not a believer then the prayer is meaningless to you and should be taken as such.  

I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds.  It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.

The problem is what the prayer implies, which you gratefully told us. The existence of a god. It indicates that the establishment is favoring one set of religions (or religion itself) over another. This occurs, of course, if it's coming from the establishment, as private prayers, like most things private, have no reason to be criticized.

Taking the musician analogy, imagine if your school made an official statement saying your favorite musician sucked and everyone should listen to a musician you didn't like. Wouldn't you be upset?

[Liberator]

Probably, but I still wouldn't have to listen to that musician if I didn't want to, this being a free country and all.  The problem with Government and Religion is that in the United States and other countries the Government should be representative of all the citizens.  Well the last time I checked, at least in the U.S., a large majority, something like 85 or 90% described themselves as religious, even if they didn't identify with a particular religion.  At the same time, the remainder can't be left out in the cold either, so the happy medium is to have government be kept separate from religion, neither promoting any particular faith or denomination or religion in general, but also not disallowing it's practice through overt action.  Which is in the Constitution somewhere and is what Jefferson meant in his Federalist Paper on the subject(#78 IIRC).

The issue is arising because a very vocal minority, who I will remind you isn't being harmed in any direct or indirect manner by the allowance of prayer, has decided to use Governmental power to force the disallowing of something they don't like, in this case prayer and the practice of religion in general.  In my view this would be analogous to the banning of public displays of affection such as hugging and kissing, as someone who has never had a girlfriend or other intimate companion I am uncomfortable with public displays of affection, but I am in the vast minority, so even if I find it uncomfortable, my participation in the event as a minority is to either admire it or ignore it and move on with my life as it has neither harmed me or benefited me in any way.

I'm trying to not sound like what most of you would call a fundie whacko.

[Ghostavo]

Probably, but I still wouldn't have to listen to that musician if I didn't want to, this being a free country and all.  The problem with Government and Religion is that in the United States and other countries the Government should be representative of all the citizens.  Well the last time I checked, at least in the U.S., a large majority, something like 85 or 90% described themselves as religious, even if they didn't identify with a particular religion.  At the same time, the remainder can't be left out in the cold either, so the happy medium is to have government be kept separate from religion, neither promoting any particular faith or denomination or religion in general, but also not disallowing it's practice through overt action.  Which is in the Constitution somewhere and is what Jefferson meant in his Federalist Paper on the subject(#78 IIRC).

But taking religion out of the schools is not disallowing it's practice. People can pray all they want. Just not as part of some school activity.

The issue is arising because a very vocal minority, who I will remind you isn't being harmed in any direct or indirect manner by the allowance of prayer, has decided to use Governmental power to force the disallowing of something they don't like, in this case prayer and the practice of religion in general.  In my view this would be analogous to the banning of public displays of affection such as hugging and kissing, as someone who has never had a girlfriend or other intimate companion I am uncomfortable with public displays of affection, but I am in the vast minority, so even if I find it uncomfortable, my participation in the event as a minority is to either admire it or ignore it and move on with my life as it has neither harmed me or benefited me in any way.

I'm trying to not sound like what most of you would call a fundie whacko.

Again, taking religion out of the schools is not disallowing it's practice. No one is closing churches or putting theist people on stakes. The actions being taken are to stop the promotion of a set of religions (or religion itself) by the government.

I remind you that there seems to be a stigma in the US against people of other religions taking government positions. I remember a study saying that people heavily distrusted atheists. There was also the whole "Obama is a muslim, the world is ending!" panic attack by some people. All of which might have been influenced by the promotion of religion by part of the government.


I feel like I'm repeating the same argument ad ad nauseum. Someone with more writing skills than me might be able to say it better.

[Liberator]

Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision.  Indeed, I would think this is so of most anyone.

Should they then not also do this in public as well?

What I'm trying to say is that while I believe that government should neither promote or demote religion(though protecting the public from obvious lunatics such as the current Jihadists or such home grown freak jobs like the Branch Davidians is ok) you can't as easily divorce religion from government.  If nothing else, a man who stops to pray about something is a man who is also stopping to think twice or more times about the solution to a problem he is facing, which is generally accepted as an admirable trait to have.

I suspect most of the people who consider themselves atheists here have either had a bad experience with proselytization or haven't actually spent much if any time in a church community.  Unlike the average modern government official they tend to have firm understanding of what the people who are involved with them want spiritually and in other more concrete ways, so it is only logical that they should act in the political arena to try and make sure that what they're people want is at least known by the leadership.

[Spicious]

Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision.  Indeed, I would think this is so of most anyone.

I think we've seen how well this worked out in the recent past. Wouldn't they be better off asking the expert advisors they hired for their expertise and advice on the specific area of their expertise?

[TrashMan]

The problem is what the prayer implies, which you gratefully told us. The existence of a god. It indicates that the establishment is favoring one set of religions (or religion itself) over another. This occurs, of course, if it's coming from the establishment, as private prayers, like most things private, have no reason to be criticized.

Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?

I see nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with a teacher staying silent and saying nothing or offering a prayer to Allah or whomever.
Or are the teachers forbidden to expressing their religion and praying (or not praying) for you?

[Turambar]

Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision. 

This is what frightens me, when they stop using their brains before important decisions.

Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?

As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.

When I  have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.

[QuantumDelta]

Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?

I see nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with a teacher staying silent and saying nothing or offering a prayer to Allah or whomever.
Or are the teachers forbidden to expressing their religion and praying (or not praying) for you?

As authority figures, yes, they should be banned from having any ideological influence on children, this is the way the religious disease spreads.
You don't expect a child to be born a Socialist or a Republican or whatever, you expect them to grow up and formulate their own opinion, with religion this isn't often exercised as what should be a basic human right, instead, they're brainwashed in any number of ways varying from the subtle to the obvious and overt.

As for people in authoritative or trusted positions offering to pray for people I OUTRIGHT think it's wrong, be they medical staff, teachers or government.
It's offensive, even if offered politely and non-forcefully, to other religions and it's patronising and insulting for people who don't require the old mental crutch cuz the worlds got them beat.

[karajorma]

I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds.  It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.

Let me ask you this. Would you have a problem with a Buddhist leading those kids to pray to Buddha instead? Suppose one of the kids was a Buddhist and the others weren't. Would you still take the position that since it has no practical effect on the others it's okay?

[MR_T3D]

all religions are really cults.
just more popular becasue they generally remove the hourly sex w/leader &mass suicide.
just because its your cult does not mean everyone's kids should be exposed to it without parental consent.
I've been to churches, and i can see how they can adjust ones thoughts, and they are comforting prospects, but still should not be in a weekday school, unless 100% of the students&parents are okay with it.

[TrashMan]

As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.

When I  have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.

A prayer (mind you - not forcing anyone to pray, but praying oneself) is offensive and harmful?
What's next? Are you planing on forbidding people to say things like "Thank God" ?

A government should not ENFORCE any religion, but it cannot be completley univolved with it. It has to deal with churches and groups and communities of believers, and not to mention that many of it's employes will be believers of some kind.

And since freeedom of religion is a basic human right of any human individual, it is wrong to forbid government employees to follow/express their own religion. They are not emotionless or mindless robots, and they shouldn't behave like one either.

[TrashMan]

As authority figures, yes, they should be banned from having any ideological influence on children, this is the way the religious disease spreads.
You don't expect a child to be born a Socialist or a Republican or whatever, you expect them to grow up and formulate their own opinion, with religion this isn't often exercised as what should be a basic human right, instead, they're brainwashed in any number of ways varying from the subtle to the obvious and overt.

As for people in authoritative or trusted positions offering to pray for people I OUTRIGHT think it's wrong, be they medical staff, teachers or government.
It's offensive, even if offered politely and non-forcefully, to other religions and it's patronising and insulting for people who don't require the old mental crutch cuz the worlds got them beat.

I find your line of thought insultive, primitive and patronising.  Frankly, trying to deliberately surpress religion everywhere is a desease of it's own.

[StarSlayer]

As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.

When I  have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.

A prayer (mind you - not forcing anyone to pray, but praying oneself) is offensive and harmful?
What's next? Are you planing on forbidding people to say things like "Thank God" ?

A government should not ENFORCE any religion, but it cannot be completley univolved with it. It has to deal with churches and groups and communities of believers, and not to mention that many of it's employes will be believers of some kind.

And since freeedom of religion is a basic human right of any human individual, it is wrong to forbid government employees to follow/express their own religion. They are not emotionless or mindless robots, and they shouldn't behave like one either.

Yes it is when they use their position to promote their religion to a body of people who are their charges acting as a representative of government.  They can have all the religion they want off the clock, they can go door to door for all I care but not in school.  Just because Christianity might happen to be the largest religion in the United States doesn't make it right to run ruck shod over the minority.  I'd like to see how defensive folks would be about prayer in school if it were not their religion being pilfered.  You can bet your ass the reaction would be completely different if the administrators got up and started reading from the Qur'an.

[QuantumDelta]

So you're fine with Shi'ite Law and other systems being incorporated into the legal processes of a state like in the UK?

Granted the UK handled it okish by saying both parties have to contractually agree to be bound to Shi'ite Law, but the point is Religion should be kept away from political motivation and should most definitely be kept away from the impressionable.

As Ted mentioned, Religions are Cults.
Just because the main ones are popular cults, doesn't make them any less that.

Religion is passed on virally - people do not develop religion similar to current religions in a vacuum - they would develop their own, or, if logically minded and aware of what motivates the human psyche to believe in such things, probably reject it fairly vehemently.

Children are genetically programmed to take on characteristics from authoritative figures around them, regardless of whether they be shown in an overt or subtle way, and thus should be sheltered heavily from indoctrination of any kind.
Instead it's the main form of religious recruiting, because no sane, mature mind would adopt a religion.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm locking this after the next three posts. Unless they sway my judgement......


In fact, you all have three posts between you to convince me not to lock it.

[StarSlayer]

Nah you can lock it, folks have fortified and entrenched their positions.  This argument is going to be a static as the Western Front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ba-64h6d6Q&feature=related

[Colonol Dekker]

  Fair enough.