# Young atheist needs support



## fangjian (May 19, 2011)

Help out if you care about the separation of church and state.  




http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/05/19/courageous-high-school-atheist-needs-5-minutes-of-your-time/


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

**** him

i got no sympathy for little mr "i dont believe" 

He can sit there and contemplate his navel for all I care.


----------



## fangjian (May 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> **** him
> 
> i got no sympathy for little mr "i dont believe"
> 
> He can sit there and contemplate his navel for all I care.



Wow. You are a 'fascinating person', Twin Fist.


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2011)

I could keep him in my thoughts and prayers! 


But all kidding aside, it's crazy. I mean, seriously, around here (bible belt) church is 3 times a week, everybody prays at the drop of a hat...how huge is it to not pray at one event? 

(then again, if you don't believe, how uncomfortable is it to be quiet for a couple of minutes)


A dangit, I am too liberal for this.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

how abotu cuz it is EVERY OTHER KIDS ONLY GRADUATION, and this ONE little **** is ruinign it for everyone else


----------



## fangjian (May 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> how abotu cuz it is EVERY OTHER KIDS ONLY GRADUATION, and this ONE little **** is ruinign it for everyone else



Ruining what?  Majority is irrelevant. What if they wanted to hire an imam to go through some of Allah's prayers or maybe some readings of L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics?  That would be ok right?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

majority rules

if it was mostly muslims, and ONE jewish wanted a rabbi..........


----------



## David43515 (May 19, 2011)

Was I the only one who was taught to "live and let live" when I was growing up? No one is trying to force him to pray, but he feels fine in forbidding others to do so. How is this any different than fobidding anyone from expressing an opinion you don`t agree with? Just because the topic is religion? I have no right to stop the KKK or the Nation of Islam from spreading their particular brands of hatred, but if either of them want to talk about whatever invisible man in the sky they want to believe in I can pop up and say "you can`t say that on public property because it would be a tacit endorsment of religion."

What ever happened to Voltaire and "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

When did we suddenly get the right not to be offended by others? This reminds me of the retail places that forbid their employees from conversing with customers in any language but English because management and other  customers may feel that they are talking about them.


----------



## David43515 (May 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> majority rules
> 
> if it was mostly muslims, and ONE jewish wanted a rabbi..........


 
Majority rules just points out that democracy is a very genteel form of mob-rule. We have a constitution to remind us of the fact that there are some things we`ll never agree on. And so we decided long ago that there would belimits on what kind of decisions we would allow our government to make. These are the areas where majority, in fact, doesn`t rule.

If the muslims want a prayer by an Iman, fine, as long as the jew can get a prayer from a Rabbi if he wants it. I`m not saying force an athiest to pray, if he doesn`t want to take part he shouldn`t have to.If he`d like to speak on why hey thinks it`s wrong or why he chooses not to believe, let him. But forbidding others to do something because you personally disagree is just as selfish and heavy-handed as he thinks the religionists are being.(Just my fairly Libertarian opinion.YMMV)


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2011)

David43515 said:


> Was I the only one who was taught to "live and let live" when I was growing up? No one is trying to force him to pray, but he feels fine in forbidding others to do so. How is this any different than fobidding anyone from expressing an opinion you don`t agree with? Just because the topic is religion? I have no right to stop the KKK or the Nation of Islam from spreading their particular brands of hatred, but if either of them want to talk about whatever invisible man in the sky they want to believe in I can pop up and say "you can`t say that on public property because it would be a tacit endorsment of religion."
> 
> What ever happened to Voltaire and "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
> 
> When did we suddenly get the right not to be offended by others? This reminds me of the retail places that forbid their employees from conversing with customers in any language but English because management and other  customers may feel that they are talking about them.




It's a problem down here, really.
There is that mindset that implies you actually MUST have Christianity in your life.

I mean, the situation seems to have spiraled out of control to what is reasonable...(btw, my Mother-in-law is a church mouse, wasn't as bad when we met nearly 20 years ago...but sheesh, she's getting on on the crazy side, though her club is pretty sane...) 

I applaude the kid for speaking his mind. He knew he was the absolute minority. was it wise though?

And Twin Fist: The 1st covers his bottom as well as yours. But he needs the protection more than you, since he is the red headed step child....

Civil disobidience is what progresses society. Not conscent at any cost!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion


 

It's both.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 19, 2011)

> Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion



This is a good point, I'm all for people speaking out against religion, however denying others from their religion? Why would anyone have that right?

It is a little tricky as well that he states, "stating it was against Louisiana state law" if this is true then he might have a point. 
Is there a law against school prayers in Louisiana? If there is then he is protected by the law. 

On one hand what does it hurt to have a group prayer? On the other he makes a point that this may be banned in schools for a reason, as someone who does practice a personal and different method of "prayer" and focus would I have the right to push that on everyone. 
Maybe they could have a moment of silence and reflection where those who want to pray can do so and others can do whatever they want.

Everyone should have a right to their beliefs, but let's not forget that for some it's not about belief as much as knowledge.

I'd like to share this quote, I don't remember exactly who said it and I am paraphrasing, but it goes something like,
"There is what we believe and what we understand, each of which take us on very different paths, and only one of those paths leads to human progress."

Everyone should have a right to not believe and instead choose the path of reason and understanding, but to *force *others on that path? It's a slippery slope.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's both.


 
no it is freedom of religion..


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​


 
nowhere does it say freedom from religion.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 19, 2011)

> nowhere does it say freedom from religion.



No, it doesn't but I think it is safe to say that in allowing for freedom of religion you are also allowing the freedom to choose to practice your religion as you see fit, (provided it isn't breaking the law) and that can easily include NOT practicing any religion as freedom implies you are free to do as you choose within the law.

My beef is when it comes to preventing others from observing their beliefs.

Is this kid thinking for himself and trying to stand up for his beliefs and rights within the law, or is he just trying to stir up sh&t?

I think part of this depends on his motives.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> no it is freedom of religion..
> 
> 
> nowhere does it say freedom from religion.


 
Not literally, but it's implicit. "Free exercise thereof" implies not exercising it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" also implies it. It's also implicit in the "no religious tests clause,":



> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but *no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.*​


 
In some cases, like this one,  "Freedom _of_ religion" *is* "freedom *from* religion."


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> No, it doesn't but I think it is safe to say that in allowing for freedom of religion you are also allowing the freedom to choose to practice your religion as you see fit, (provided it isn't breaking the law) and that can easily include NOT practicing any religion as freedom implies you are free to do as you choose within the law.
> 
> My beef is when it comes to preventing others from observing their beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
I do not see it like that. Its a freedom of speech issue for those practicing freedom of religion to pray at a ceremony if they chose to. The athiest does not have to believe, does not have to listen either. I would say that the school should provide equal time to the athiest to have an anti prayer? Or something that an athiest would say as long as it is not disrespectful, or against etiquette... I would pretty much say that at these public ceremonies that if time is given to a religion, that equal time must be provided to other religions requesting time. 30 seconds? how long is the prayer, probably not long. I would say the only issue would be if they said we are giving a christian prayer, and you must listen and say Amen at the end or you will be removed from the ceremony. 
I would say realistically there should be a time limit to register to have a prayer or statement read, and if not submitted by the time given then tough luck.
I do however think that prohibiting any showing of religion from any government related function or ceremony is not only violating the spirit of the Amendment, but is just pandering to the religion of atheism, or anti religion, or the religion of no religion... whatever you want to call it. So give me freedom from the religion of atheism....


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not literally, but it's implicit. "Free exercise thereof" implies not exercising it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" also implies it. It's also implicit in the "no religious tests clause,":
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases, like this one, "Freedom _of_ religion" *is* "freedom *from* religion."


 
I get it, I interpret it differently. I understand what the standard is at this time, I just don't agree with it.


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

I'm all for freedoms but I do not agree with what the kid is saying.



> My reasoning behind it is that its emotionally stressing on anyone who isnt Christian.



On ANYONE that isn't Christian?  No, that is too broad of a brush.


----------



## K831 (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not literally, but it's implicit. "Free exercise thereof" implies not exercising it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" also implies it. It's also implicit in the "no religious tests clause,":
> 
> In some cases, like this one,  "Freedom _of_ religion" *is* "freedom *from* religion."



It implies freedom from a_ state mandated religion_. The separation of church and state was designed to keep the state out of religion, had nothing to do with keeping religion out of public discourse or public life in anyway. 

The founders did not want government to institute any nationalized religion as had been seen throughout history. They intended for citizens to be free to exercise religion as they individually chose. 

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to ensure that congress did not favor any one religion in such a way as to limit the faith of others.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

K831 said:


> It implies freedom from a_ state mandated religion_. The separation of church and state was designed to keep the state out of religion, had nothing to do with keeping religion out of public discourse or public life in anyway.
> 
> The founders did not want government to institute any nationalized religion as had been seen throughout history. They intended for citizens to be free to exercise religion as they individually chose.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to ensure that congress did not favor any one religion in such a way as to limit the faith of others.


 

But having a very public prayer, at a very public ceremony, at a _public_ school, implies that the state supports that one religion over another, and _mandates_ that people be there for it.

Don't get me wrong: I grew up with a minister for a father, at a time when it meant that he was meant to offer some sort of blessing or invocation at all sorts of public events: little league dinners, Boy Scout meetings, and, yes, graduations (though not from high school...)-Dad had a few non-denominational prayers for just such occasions-they didn't even mention "Jesus Christ," because it was New York, and you could count on their being non-Christians in attendance. Next time I'm at my  mom's, though, I'm gonna have to dig through his stuff and have another look at them, because I'm pretty sure there weren't any that took atheists into consideration, and they all mentioned "God."

That said, the kid's right, and within his rights, and has exercised them, which isn't always easy-so he has to reap the consequences, which, to me, are proving to be  far greater than his simple discomfort with a few words that should be essentially meaningless to him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> But having a very public prayer, at a very public ceremony, at a _public_ school, implies that the state supports that one religion over another, and _mandates_ that people be there for it.



Actually, attending graduation is a voluntary event to the best of my knowledge.  It's a symbolic ceremony; one has already graduated at that point.

Now, I do understand, and agree with you, that when the state sponsors an activity and involves religious prayers by clergy, it gives the appearance of state-sponsored religion.  I'd be fine with it being discontinued.  It may be traditional to have a prayer at a high-school graduation, but not having one in no way diminishes the graduation experience as far as I can tell; nor does it render graduation invalid.  Who would argue that a person hadn't really graduated from high school because a benediction wasn't given first during the ceremony?

Given, however, that the tradition is legal to the best of my knowledge, and has withstood numerous attacks in court by the ACLU and others, I do not see what interest is served by distressing the many in favor of the one at this late date.  If he is that concerned about being forced to be present when a benediction is given, he does not have to attend.

Ultimately, graduation is about the graduates, but it is not for any one person.  It is a community event, sponsored by the school, and for the benefit of the families, the graduates, and the community at large.  One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO.  If the community objects, that is obviously a different matter; these are community standards.

High school students are full of angst, among other things.  Having stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have preferred it left alone.  I would consider this a life-lesson and move on.  Perhaps just me.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I do however think that prohibiting any showing of religion from any government related function or ceremony is not only violating the spirit of the Amendment, but is just pandering to the religion of atheism, or anti religion, or the religion of no religion... whatever you want to call it. So give me freedom from the religion of atheism....



Secularism is the best way to go. It's the only way. We don't need any supernatural stuff and mythology to be in state/gvt etc. property. Scientology, Satanism and all the rest can all stay within their own buildings. How does this not make sense?

The religion of atheism. lolz


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

"Majority rule"
We don't live in a Democracy, Thank Franklin.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Secularism is the best way to go. It's the only way. We don't need any supernatural stuff and mythology to be in state/gvt etc. property. Scientology, Satanism and all the rest can all stay within their own buildings. How does this not make sense?
> 
> The religion of atheism. lolz



Because it is unconstitutional, for one.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  *prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



So if it is restricted to their "own buildings," then that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  I can only exercise my religion in places you designate?  Uh, no.

A person is elected to public office and they are no longer allowed to speak in public of their religion or their beliefs, or express their devotion to whatever God they worship?  Again, I would call that an infringement on the 'free exercise' clause.

Let us say this; there is a fine line between a state-sponsored religion (establishment) and a person who is a representative of the state (elected official) expressing their own beliefs in public (free exercise).  Sometimes they cross each other; sometimes it's a gray area and courts have to get involved to decide it.

But as much as I am most definitely in favor of living in a nation which is not a _"Christian nation,"_ I am also not in favor of denying the rights of those of us who are Christian (or Jewish or Muslim, or even Satanists) to practice their religion.  Even in public, even in office.

We are not a _'Christian nation'_ as some have insisted.  But we are a nation that is largely comprised of Christians, and those Christians have the right not just to believe as they wish, but to express those beliefs in public.

When we speak of freedom from religion, we mean freedom from having a religion forcibly imposed upon us.  I agree that this should never happen.  Not even the appearance of it.

When we speak of freedom of religion, we mean the freedom not just to believe as we choose, but to express ourselves as we choose; so long as that expression violates no laws and violates no one else's Constitutional rights.

I am not aware of a Constitutional right to not have to see, hear, or otherwise experience public displays of religious expression, our young high school student notwithstanding.  One can be an atheist; but one has no civil liberty promise of not seeing or hearing religious speech.  One must accommodate those who believe, just as believers must accommodate those who wish to speak of not having a religion at all.

Imagine if freedom of speech were literally interpreted as meaning freedom not to hear what one does not want to hear.  That's how this is being turned around.

Freedom from being exposed to religion?  No such thing.  Only freedom from being forced to adopt a state religion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "Majority rule"
> We don't live in a Democracy, Thank Franklin.



We live in a representative republic, but we also have aspects of democracy incorporated into our system of governance.  This is represented by plebiscites and other forms of direct vote, where indeed the simple majority of registered voters becomes the law.

It is also fairly-well understood in our legal system that communities have the right to live by the standards they find acceptable - so-called 'community standards' which are understood to differ from place to place and time to time.  They may not infringe upon civil liberties, but they can, to the extent possible, live as the majority of them (the 'community') please.

An example of this is seen in obscenity laws, where the standards can differ vastly from one state to another, even one city to another.  Not fun, but perfectly legal.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Because it is unconstitutional, for one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good post.  When I said ' their own buildings' I just meant not on state/gvt buildings. Of course people can say whatever in public. 

So I should assume that you have no problem with Islamic or Scientology stuff on government buildings?


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, attending graduation is a voluntary event to the best of my knowledge. It's a symbolic ceremony; one has already graduated at that point.
> 
> Now, I do understand, and agree with you, that when the state sponsors an activity and involves religious prayers by clergy, it gives the appearance of state-sponsored religion. I'd be fine with it being discontinued. It may be traditional to have a prayer at a high-school graduation, but not having one in no way diminishes the graduation experience as far as I can tell; nor does it render graduation invalid. Who would argue that a person hadn't really graduated from high school because a benediction wasn't given first during the ceremony?
> 
> Given, however, that the tradition is legal to the best of my knowledge, and has withstood numerous attacks in court by the ACLU and others, I do not see what interest is served by distressing the many in favor of the one at this late date. If he is that concerned about being forced to be present when a benediction is given, he does not have to attend.


 
From the kids email in the OP:



> * due to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if they ignored me, they ceased it. The school backed down, but thats when the shitstorm rolled in*.


 
Given that he's "won," though, what support does he expect, exactly?



Bill Mattocks said:


> One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO. If the community objects, that is obviously a different matter; these are community standards.
> 
> High school students are full of angst, among other things. Having stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have preferred it left alone. I would consider this a life-lesson and move on. Perhaps just me.


 
I agree with you entirely, here.....


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

*One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said  should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO......Having  stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have  preferred it left alone.  I would consider this a life-lesson and move  on.  Perhaps just me.*


re-posted for truth

i got no sympathy for this little Mr "i gotta have it my way cuz i am special" 

i hope he learns the REAL hard way that sometimes, it just isnt about what YOU want


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> So I should assume that you have no problem with Islamic or Scientology stuff on government buildings?



I don't want any religious symbology on the sides of government buildings.  Not Christian, not anything.  What I meant was that the people that make up our government, including educators, politicians, office workers, and etc, are all entitled to _'free exercise'_ of their religion, no differently than you or me.  What that amounts to is that I can't demand that government employee not pray, or pray to a specific God or in a particular way; that's their own business, including speaking of their beliefs in public - whatever they may be.  Putting the symbols on the sides of the buildings implies, to me, an endorsement of a particular religion, and this I would feel crosses the think but indistinct line between church and state.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

Eh I learned (not quickly, but painfully) to pick your battles going from bachelorhood to insta-family with 2 stepdaughters, at the time aged 3 & 5.

He picked his battle... he has to deal with the fallout. Good on him for cowboying up &  standing his ground, but he didn't choose wisely IMHO. He felt he needed to make a statement. Apparently it's not bothered him to the point of needing to make the statement in his teenage life so far. But at this time, it bunched his boxers. 

Ok... he's been heard. Now he has to deal with the aftermath.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> From the kids email in the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, when I read that, my alarm bells went off.  I tend to doubt it happened quite that way, although the student may have interpreted it that way based on his actions and the outcome he received.  I think the student could have 'contacted the ACLU' all he liked, and nothing much would have happened.  The ACLU has fought this battle before, and lost.  It's not one they're likely to get into again soon, IMHO.

As to your statement, that's exactly right.  He won; now he also wants them to loft him overhead and proclaim him a hero of liberty.  You won, kid, perhaps only through sheer bravado; the other guy blinked and backed down.  You fed him a **** sandwich.  I would not expect him to tell you how delicious it is.  The fact that he thinks you're pretty much scum of the earth?  Well, that kind of goes with that whole unwanted hero thing.  Life-lesson time again.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

People think that there should be no fall out for their actions.
Part of being a real adult is accepting responsibility.
It's also knowing what battles are really worth the fight.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> *
> 
> i hope he learns the REAL hard way that sometimes, it just isnt about what YOU want*


*

What exactly is that suppose to mean?

[QUOTEHe picked his battle... he has to deal with the fallout. Good on him for cowboying up & standing his ground, but he didn't choose wisely IMHO. He felt he needed to make a statement. Apparently it's not bothered him to the point of needing to make the statement in his teenage life so far. But at this time, it bunched his boxers. 
[/QUOTE]

This seems to be everyone's sentiment so far. Yes it is a life lesson. Nothing wrong with picking battles. As long as he isn't assaulted or anything, it's probably a battle worth picking, at least IMO. 

So far I got:  Bill Mattocks says they are free to hold prayers or any other type of religious stuff on state/gvt property, but just not put 'props' up or anything. 

TF says. 'majority rules'. But I'm curious, which majority?  Some areas are Mormon majority, some Muslim, or do you mean the 'majority' of the entire USA? Or entire state of _____________?*


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

community standards. Bill covered it nicely

i meant exactly what i wrote. I hope he learns, the real hard way, that sometimes, it isnt about what YOU want, it is about what everyone wants, and if you piss off everyone else, you are gonna have to pay the price for that


----------



## CoryKS (May 20, 2011)

This is utterly asinine.  You know what, I'm an atheist who was raised in a very religious community, and I also sat through events like graduations where someone offered a prayer.  The result?  Twenty minutes later, I had a diploma.  BFD.

Nobody is making him pray.  Nobody is making him say the words or go through the motions.  He is not courageous, he's an intolerant little attention whore.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

coryks said:


> this is utterly asinine.  You know what, i'm an atheist who was raised in a very religious community, and i also sat through events like graduations where someone offered a prayer.  The result?  Twenty minutes later, i had a diploma.  Bfd.
> 
> Nobody is making him pray.  Nobody is making him say the words or go through the motions.  He is not courageous, he's an intolerant little attention whore.



qft.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Isn't it part of the law though, that public school-sponsored events are not allowed to have religious content as part of their ceremony? Or is it 'cause the prayer is done by a student or something( like a loop hole)?

I know in CT at my kids' school they do the pledge with the religious content in it. I was gonna say something to the school, but I noticed that CT is one of the states that doesn't have it banned yet. 

If anyone has a link for the actual federal laws in question or state law, I'd appreciate it. I've searched around and find anything I'd consider _official_.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Isn't it part of the law though, that public school-sponsored events are not allowed to have religious content as part of their ceremony? Or is it 'cause the prayer is done by a student or something( like a loop hole)?


 
While the _schools, their administration and teachers_ cannot promote religion or prayer during the day, the students right to pray,or hold discussions with religious content.While the school itself cannot initiate or force students to participate in prayer, they can support and give official recognition to the nation's religious heritage.

So the law is rather schizophrenic-as Bill noted, this has been in court several times, and the atheists usually lose-in part because there the law is somewhat open to interpretation, and it's usually interpreted by elected  officials, or political appointees....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> So far I got:  Bill Mattocks says they are free to hold prayers or any other type of religious stuff on state/gvt property, but just not put 'props' up or anything.



Not exactly, but that is kind of what it works out to.

The Constitution says two things about religion.  First, that government is not to establish any, and second, that the government may not restrict the free practice of it.  Some refer to that as the _'establishment clause' _and the _'free exercise clause'_.  They are two different things.  Sometimes they conflict with each other, and we have lawsuits that end up as high as the Supreme Court.

I cannot say that the government is free to hold prayers or other religious observances on state property per se - I can only say that in recent court cases, the courts have held that *SOME* such observances *do not tend to 'establish'* a government preference for a given religion.  You can disagree with that - sometimes I also disagree with that. I am stating what is, not necessarily what ought to be.

Other observances DO tend to 'establish' according to the courts.  For example, teacher-led prayer does.  Having the words 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't.  Again, one can argue that this is right or wrong - I would not disagree with anyone who took either side on these - I am merely saying what the courts have ordered.  Period; there is no discussion once the Supreme Court says so, unless they themselves come back to it in another court case.

In some cases, the courts have held that some religious symbols put up on state property DO violate the 'establishment' clause - for example, Nativity scenes at Christmas.  Others do not - I am not sure, but I think the 'Ten Commandments' didn't (can't recall).

There is no hard-and-fast rule.  It's all down to the interpretation of the court on a particular case.  They decide whether or not a given act infringes on the establishment clause or the free exercise clause, and to what degree one side has to give in.

It's messy, sorry.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Isn't it part of the law though, that public school-sponsored events are not allowed to have religious content as part of their ceremony? Or is it 'cause the prayer is done by a student or something( like a loop hole)?



No, it is not part of the statute law, to the best of my knowledge.



> I know in CT at my kids' school they do the pledge with the religious content in it. I was gonna say something to the school, but I noticed that CT is one of the states that doesn't have it banned yet.



The "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance was put there in the 1950's at the behest of the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic men's group to which I belong, although I do not agree with this action).  

The courts have heard many challenges to this - in some places they have struck it down, and in other places they have not.  I can't really tell you what the law is currently where you are.  Typically, it is perfectly legal to have it in the school recital with the words 'Under God' in it, but students are generally (not always) allowed to opt-out of saying it.  They're not protected from having to hear it, though.  That falls under the category of tough chit, mon.



> If anyone has a link for the actual federal laws in question or state law, I'd appreciate it. I've searched around and find anything I'd consider _official_.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance



> The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance  June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag  Code enacted in 1942.[16]



Typically, you're going to find that there are no laws saying "You don't have to say the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance."  There are no laws saying what you don't have to do.  And the only law saying anything about the Pledge of Allegiance is the federal law that says what the official wording of it is.  It does not require you to say it either.

You're looking for absolutes with regard to the separation of church and state in the USA.  There aren't any.  It's all a balancing act, and the balance changes based on time and place.  That constant struggle between 'establishment' and 'free exercise'.  Perhaps it's best that way.

But one general statement can be made.  No one has the right not to be exposed to hearing, seeing, or otherwise being offended by religious statements, displays, writing, utterances, etc, etc.  If you think the law protects you from having to hear things you don't want to hear, you're wrong.  As long as you have the right to leave, you have not had your rights violated.  Like people objecting to dirty words on TV.  Turn the channel, bubba.  No one forces you to watch that stuff.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So the law is rather schizophrenic-as Bill noted, this has been in court several times, and the atheists usually lose-in part because there the law is somewhat open to interpretation, and it's usually interpreted by elected  officials, or political appointees....



Some say (and I tend to agree, mostly) that the fundamental tension between establishment and free exercise was put there intentionally and serves a valid purpose.

It does tend to ebb and flow with the zeitgeist.  What is considered establishment today wasn't consider to be so twenty years ago.  Unlike a hard-and-fast 'right to bear arms' amendment, the First Amendment has not an ambiguity but an actual contradiction in it, one that must be interpreted over and over again, on a nearly case-by-case basis.

I can see that it's unsatisfying to many - religious and non-religious alike.  Perhaps that is best.  We are a religious nation - but the nature and percentage of our belief changes over time.  We have the right to freely exercise those beliefs, and who would want to live in a nation where religion was banned?  That's hardly freedom.  But we also don't want it crammed down our throats or forced upon us, because that's not freedom either.

Somewhere in the middle is a balance point that changes, and it doesn't make anyone truly happy, but it also keeps us on a path to maximum freedom for the majority in terms of religious expression and freedom from religious persuasion.

This displeases certain theists - they cannot have a government ordered by the religious principles they would like.  Sharia, Canon Law, all that.  It also displeases many atheists (not all, please).  The militant ones who not only want the right not to believe, but also think the government's job is to protect them from ever being exposed to any religious expression in public.

Perhaps all this displeasure is a good sign in this case.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

Pagan perspective:
I stand/sit silently, showing respect for the different view, while internally rolling my eyes at the whole thing.  I will confess to giving my wife a "you're kidding right?" look at a wedding once where things were more groveling submission than I could stomach, but that was the extent of it. Their event, I was a guest.  I'll be politely tolerant, rather than ruin things for others who do care for the 'ceremony'.
My position is, kid should have just let it go, there are bigger issues out there. He wasn't being forced to pray, just listen to someone else rattle off a quick magic spell for a minute or 2. Roll your eyes, count to 20 and its over.
my take.  ymmv.


----------



## cdunn (May 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This displeases certain theists - they cannot have a government ordered by the religious principles they would like. Sharia, Canon Law, all that. It also displeases many atheists (not all, please). The militant ones who not only want the right not to believe, but also think the government's job is to protect them from ever being exposed to any religious expression in public.
> 
> Perhaps all this displeasure is a good sign in this case.


 
The critical legal question, imho, is simply this: Does the government permitted or arrainged use of time, by a third party, alloted as part of a government function in a space owned/rented by the government, and paid for by the government, consititute government endorsement of that use of time? I don't know. That'll take a judge, and like you noted, some flop around on the issue. If no, then have at your prayer, as long as you don't expect students to do anything in support of it. If so, well, that's not just exposure to religious expression in public. That is cramming things down someone's throat. There is a difference between 'public' and 'governmental' space, and do remember, your local school district operates on authority ceeded by the state government.

In the same manner, being elected somewhere to something does not stop you from exercising your religion, but you are barred from using the force of your office, including the ability to write budgets and allocate space, to exercise that religion.

Is it simple enough to ignore a prayer? Yes. Do I point and laugh at and ignore the billboards and radio and TV commercials that hamfistedly attempt to threaten me "straight" with a fate that doesn't exist? Yes. Do I think that participation at a _civil, secular_ rite of passage should involve giving a student or minister a shot at praying - and quite possibly making those same threats - on the government dime? No.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That falls under the category of tough chit, mon.



This seems to also be most peoples' attitude toward stuff like the 'under god' issue and the issue of the original post. Tough chit. This is also the attitude of most non-believers as well. They are usually the first to come to the defense of religious belief getting 'picked on'. 

To you specifically Bill. I gather you don't 'support' the 'under god' clause, but is it just that you 'don't care' either way, because it doesn't effect you? 

Also, I am in full support of freedom of expression. Even for douche bags like Fred Phelps. But I'm surprised that isn't enough. It has to be on state properties too. 



> i meant exactly what i wrote. I hope he learns, the real hard way, that sometimes, it isnt about what YOU want, it is about what everyone wants, and if you piss off everyone else, you are gonna have to pay the price for that



I would assume 'the hard way' means some type of assault. Strange.


----------



## Flea (May 20, 2011)

I'll probably get a "jane you ignorant slut" for this, but I understand where the kid is coming from.  I was a non-christian in the Bible Belt for twelve years.  The atmosphere is completely saturated with Christianity to the point that it feels like harassment after a while. I'm not talking about the white noise of walking past six churches on the same block, but the overtly aggressive prosetelysing. It's relentless.  It _never_ goes away.  All he did was call attention to the law of the land, and he's right to do so.  It reflects well on the school that they turned out someone both with discernment, and the courage to hold to his principles.

In politics the time is _always_ right to pander to the Scripture-thumpers, so of course he's being demonized.  I think this says a lot about the people harassing this kid.  What does it say about the strength of their faith if they're threatened by missing out on one single prayer?  Is their relationship with the Savior really that fragile?  Personally I think they're just having a big collective tantrum for not getting their way .000000000001% of the time.  Give it a rest.  God can handle it, so should they.  If God can't handle it, He's not worth worshipping in the first place.

The Flea has spoken.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

Flea said:


> I'll probably get a "jane you ignorant slut" for this, but I understand where the kid is coming from.  I was a non-christian in the Bible Belt for twelve years.  The atmosphere is completely saturated with Christianity to the point that it feels like harassment after a while. I'm not talking about the white noise of walking past six churches on the same block, but the overtly aggressive prosetelysing. It's relentless.  It _never_ goes away.  All he did was call attention to the law of the land, and he's right to do so.  It reflects well on the school that they turned out someone both with discernment, and the courage to hold to his principles.



Bollocks. 

I was born & raised here in the Bible belt. You can say I'm southern born, southern bred. I grew up in a little town that the population was smaller than the student body population of the high school I graduated form here in metro Atlanta. There were more churches than stores there. 

My family never attended church. It didn't mean we were atheists. It means we didn't go to church. We never had issues. Ever.

Sorry to say but if you were feeling harassment as you describe, that's a personal issue or something else you internalized. I've never encountered anywhere here in the south the overtly aggressive proselytizing than you say you encountered. Oh sure the occasional Jehovah's Witness's pop up on Saturday AM with their pamphlets. I answer the door, nicely tell them "Not interested" & I continue my day, feeling still unmolested or unimpeded on. 

I must admit I did get a chuckle once from telling a lady that randomly walked up to me at a building I used to work at in Buckhead and asked if I wanted to talk about my Savior. I shot her a deadpanned look & told her I was a Buddhist. The look of shock on her face could've been compared to shooting a puppy in front of her. She literally stumbled away. 



Flea said:


> In politics the time is _always_ right to pander to the Scripture-thumpers, so of course he's being demonized.  I think this says a lot about the people harassing this kid.  What does it say about the strength of their faith if they're threatened by missing out on one single prayer?  Is their relationship with the Savior really that fragile?  Personally I think they're just having a big collective tantrum for not getting their way .000000000001% of the time.  Give it a rest.  God can handle it, so should they.  If God can't handle it, He's not worth worshipping in the first place.
> 
> The Flea has spoken.



The kid decided to garner some attention & bring to light his personal standpoint that is counter to the community. He was well aware of local social/religious feelings and perspectives. He chose poorly for the timing, event & reason. He now has to deal with the after effects and fallout. If it includes a good ol'fashion (if not wholly undeserved) asswhuppin, well he was big enough to cause the ruckus and he should be big enough to deal with it. It does not mean it's right nor do I support it if it does come to pass. However, I also understand why.

The backlash has nothing to do with any kind of attack on their faith or relationship with God. It's part & parcel of their lifestyle. It's part of who they are & what they do. It's as much cultural & expected as simply religious.


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2011)

Pissing on everybodys parade because YOU don't like something..or changing long standing traditions because YOU _FEEL_ offended is whats going wrong with society IMO. You are NOT a precious little snowflake who we all have to watch our P's and Q's around.

Get over your damn self kid. Maybe mommy thinks you are the most important person in the universe...I on the other hand disagee.

Because I am the most important person in the universe.


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> I was born & raised here in the Bible belt. You can say I'm southern born, southern bred. I grew up in a little town that the population was smaller than the student body population of the high school I graduated form here in metro Atlanta. There were more churches than stores there.
> 
> My family never attended church. It didn't mean we were atheists. It means we didn't go to church. We never had issues. Ever. Sorry to say but if you were feeling harassment as you describe, that's a personal issue or something else you internalized. I've never encountered anywhere here in the south the overtly aggressive proselytizing than you say you encountered.


 
So, you had a different experience than Flea. How is what Flea said BS?


> The kid decided to garner some attention & bring to light his personal standpoint that is counter to the community. He was well aware of local social/religious feelings and perspectives. He chose poorly for the timing, event & reason. He now has to deal with the after effects and fallout.


 It's obvious that there will likely be many others who disagree with his opinion. So what if he's askin for some support from the secular thinking community. Everyone seems to be complaining that he's being a whiny little beech for asking for some support. I'm sure he understood very well what the fallout would be like.  


> If it includes a good ol'fashion (if not wholly undeserved) asswhuppin, well he was big enough to cause the ruckus and he should be big enough to deal with it. It does not mean it's right nor do I support it if it does come to pass. However, I also understand why.


_ (if not wholly undeserved)         ?_

If he is attacked because of this, all it shows is how primitive the thinking is of some people. Right TF?


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Pissing on everybodys parade because YOU don't like something..or changing long standing traditions because YOU _FEEL_ offended is whats going wrong with society IMO.


 It's not about what 'someone doesn't like'. It's about what is _best for society_. It's about _law_.         etc


----------



## granfire (May 20, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> I was born & raised here in the Bible belt. You can say I'm southern born, southern bred. I grew up in a little town that the population was smaller than the student body population of the high school I graduated form here in metro Atlanta. There were more churches than stores there.
> 
> ...



But you are considering yourself Christian, right?
While I do, I find I have to agree with Flea on the matter of the zealous neighbors. I mean, it seems like it is ok for the preacher to stop by the hospital and initiate prayer even if you are not a member of his flock or remotely interested...can't very well tell him to go to hell...(and he was one of the nicer guys of his profession) 
But I have seen some rather nasty examples that preach to you no matter what! yuck.



> I must admit I did get a chuckle once from telling a lady that randomly walked up to me at a building I used to work at in Buckhead and asked if I wanted to talk about my Savior. I shot her a deadpanned look & told her I was a Buddhist. The look of shock on her face could've been compared to shooting a puppy in front of her. She literally stumbled away.


ah, sigh...can I sign my pets over to you in case of rapture?

:lfao:





> The kid decided to garner some attention & bring to light his personal standpoint that is counter to the community. He was well aware of local social/religious feelings and perspectives. He chose poorly for the timing, event & reason. He now has to deal with the after effects and fallout. If it includes a good ol'fashion (if not wholly undeserved) asswhuppin, well he was big enough to cause the ruckus and he should be big enough to deal with it. It does not mean it's right nor do I support it if it does come to pass. However, I also understand why.
> 
> The backlash has nothing to do with any kind of attack on their faith or relationship with God. It's part & parcel of their lifestyle. It's part of who they are & what they do. It's as much cultural & expected as simply religious.



Yes and no. Flea had a point. 
Just because it is expected does not mean it is not beyond question.
But here now do 2 world collide.
But it seems to be par for the course. There is a sort of bully mentality among the faithful in the south. If you are not with them, you are certainly against them, and with a fervor that rivals that of the conquistadore they try to force their way upon the rest. 

I mean, seriously! Kid had to shut his FB down?! 
While I do not agree completely with his stand, I do find he is behaving more mature than the rest of the community.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> ah, sigh...can I sign my pets over to you in case of rapture?
> 
> :lfao:



Thanks but no... I have TOO many now... :erg:


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> So, you had a different experience than Flea. How is what Flea said BS?



I didn't say BS... I said bollocks. Not everywhere in the South is the way her experience was put forth. Not everybody in the South fits the mold of her experience as she described it. That's bollocks. It's like saying everybody in the NJ/NYC area can be described as the cast of Jersey Shore.



fangjian said:


> It's obvious that there will likely be many others who disagree with his opinion. So what if he's askin for some support from the secular thinking community. Everyone seems to be complaining that he's being a whiny little beech for asking for some support. I'm sure he understood very well what the fallout would be like.



I doubt he expected what he's received. I don't believe he thought it through. He put his individual feelings/opinions because of how he felt as opposed to the remaining class & community population. Quite selfish & short sighted.



fangjian said:


> _ (if not wholly undeserved)         ?_


 
Look at the result of his actions. He impacted multiple people by his actions. He didn't think past the reflection in the mirror. Therefore, any repercussions are not undeserved, but decidedly not condoned. But the reasoning is understandable.



fangjian said:


> If he is attacked because of this, all it shows is how primitive the thinking is of some people. Right TF?



If he were to be physically attacked, the people doing so would be no better than he was in doing what he did.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> But you are considering yourself Christian, right?
> While I do, I find I have to agree with Flea on the matter of the zealous neighbors. I mean, it seems like it is ok for the preacher to stop by the hospital and initiate prayer even if you are not a member of his flock or remotely interested...can't very well tell him to go to hell...(and he was one of the nicer guys of his profession)
> But I have seen some rather nasty examples that preach to you no matter what! yuck.



Not particularly Christian, but religious in inclination is a better descriptor. You can tell the preacher thanks but no at the hospital if it's to your beliefs. I've seen those same examples & we see them now more & more in the news media nowadays.





granfire said:


> Yes and no. Flea had a point.
> Just because it is expected does not mean it is not beyond question.
> But here now do 2 world collide.
> But it seems to be par for the course. There is a sort of bully mentality among the faithful in the south. If you are not with them, you are certainly against them, and with a fervor that rivals that of the conquistadore they try to force their way upon the rest.



There is that group but they are not solely exclusive to the South. It's just our accents make better soundbytes on the news. :tantrum:

They can be that way for sure. Funny... if they're Muslim, we label them radicals. If they're Baptists, they're ultraconservative.



granfire said:


> I mean, seriously! Kid had to shut his FB down?!
> While I do not agree completely with his stand, I do find he is behaving more mature than the rest of the community.



Maturity on this event I find myself not being able to discern. The kid was a brat & a whiner for doing what he did. The community isn't really much better for their collective response.


----------



## granfire (May 20, 2011)

lol, I said _more_ mature....

But only disagreement gets us to progress as society. If you do what you have always done you get the same result, always.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> lol, I said _more_ mature....



lol... quite right!!



granfire said:


> But only disagreement gets us to progress as society. If you do what you have always done you get the same result, always.



Yep


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It's not about what 'someone doesn't like'. It's about what is _best for society_. It's about _law_. etc


 
Sure...

Thats what this kid was concerned about...

Right...


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You are NOT a precious little snowflake who we all have to watch our P's and Q's around.



Same goes for all and sundry who are ******** the bed over a rather minor matter.  If the boy had a responsibility to consider everyone else's feelings, then everyone else also has a responsibility to consider the feelings of the individuals making up that group.  Any complaining minority is not automatically a selfish whiner.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2011)

clfsean said:


> If he were to be physically attacked, the people doing so would be no better than he was in doing what he did.



Considerably worse actually, since the boy physically harmed no one.  There is no "understanding" of the reasoning leading to any physical retaliation in this case.  It is not justified. Not to mention that it would be a betrayal of the very religion the attackers claim to hold so precious and dear.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Considerably worse actually, since the boy physically harmed no one.  There is no "understanding" of the reasoning leading to any physical retaliation in this case.  It is not justified. Not to mention that it would be a betrayal of the very religion the attackers claim to hold so precious and dear.



While quite true & documented, he harmed physically no one. That is a given.

There is understanding in people translating their perceived emotional harm in interruption of "normal" activities process in their community. Rather intended or not & I would like to think not, that's the way it was most likely perceived. 

I never said it was justified if it came to pass. I just said understandable. Not all people react coolly or logically to interruption of "normal process" in what is commonly accepted as a "big moment" such as high school graduation. 

As to the betrayal of the tenets of the religion held dear, minus the snarky-ness... let's not get into what has gone on & still goes on today "in the name of God" by peoples around the world with different names of God.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> This seems to also be most peoples' attitude toward stuff like the 'under god' issue and the issue of the original post. Tough chit. This is also the attitude of most non-believers as well. They are usually the first to come to the defense of religious belief getting 'picked on'.
> 
> To you specifically Bill. I gather you don't 'support' the 'under god' clause, but is it just that you 'don't care' either way, because it doesn't effect you?
> 
> Also, I am in full support of freedom of expression. Even for douche bags like Fred Phelps. But I'm surprised that isn't enough. It has to be on state properties too.



You are correct - I don't care for the _"Under God"_ clause, and I'd also be happy to see _"In God We Trust"_ removed from our money, but I sincerely doubt it's going to happen, and you are also correct that it doesn't keep me up nights.  I've got too much else to worry about.



> I would assume 'the hard way' means some type of assault. Strange.



I'm pretty sure you're aware of it, but just to double check - I didn't make the statement you replied to here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 20, 2011)

Flea said:


> I'll probably get a "jane you ignorant slut" for this, but I understand where the kid is coming from.  I was a non-christian in the Bible Belt for twelve years.  The atmosphere is completely saturated with Christianity to the point that it feels like harassment after a while. I'm not talking about the white noise of walking past six churches on the same block, but the overtly aggressive prosetelysing. It's relentless.  It _never_ goes away.  All he did was call attention to the law of the land, and he's right to do so.  It reflects well on the school that they turned out someone both with discernment, and the courage to hold to his principles.
> 
> In politics the time is _always_ right to pander to the Scripture-thumpers, so of course he's being demonized.  I think this says a lot about the people harassing this kid.  What does it say about the strength of their faith if they're threatened by missing out on one single prayer?  Is their relationship with the Savior really that fragile?  Personally I think they're just having a big collective tantrum for not getting their way .000000000001% of the time.  Give it a rest.  God can handle it, so should they.  If God can't handle it, He's not worth worshipping in the first place.
> 
> The Flea has spoken.



I don't disagree with you with regard to your experiences.  I lived in the South, I am Catholic, not Baptist.  I might as well have worn horns and carried a pitchfork.  Yes, the proselytizing is part of the background noise.  They don't think they're doing it.  I get that.  Heck, I had to attend a mandatory 'company prayer breakfast' that had a preacher saying that he prayed for the Jews and Catholics, that we'd come to know God.  I didn't much care for that.

But this is not about that.  It's not about how others make you feel, it's about the law.  Can they give a religious benediction at a school function like graduation?  I think in most jurisdictions, the answer is 'yes'.  However, he challenged them and the school backed down.  Good for him.  But now he's upset because everyone hates him?  I'm sorry, there is no law that says people have to like it when you 'correct' them.  They're going to hate him.  Right or wrong, he brought that on himself.  I don't know how you make people not hate him; there's no law for that.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It's not about what 'someone doesn't like'. It's about what is _best for society_. It's about _law_. etc


 
Who's to say "what's best for society?" 

_*Which*_ society?

Apparently, what's best for the society this kid finds himself in-that small community where he attended school-is to have a benediction at graduation. 

"law, etc.," as I said, is somewhat murky in this instance, but, in spite of understandable perceptions to the contrary, such demonstrations of faith in the public square have been upheld as legal.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

IF he gets assaulted, it would be a crime and should be investigated as such

it would also be his own damn fault for pissing off the entire TOWN.

but still a crime


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2011)

clfsean said:


> As to the betrayal of the tenets of the religion held dear, minus the snarky-ness...



Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky.  I mean it quite literally.  There is something wrong with your (not you personally) thinking if you think the appropriate response with someone interfering in the religion based partially on "turn the other cheek" and similar is to hand out a beating.  He didn't even insult or blaspheme.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I mean it quite literally. There is something wrong with your (not you personally) thinking if you think the appropriate response with someone interfering in the religion based partially on "turn the other cheek" and similar is to hand out a beating. He didn't even insult or blaspheme.


 
Understood. :bangahead:

True he didn't insult or blaspheme, but he removed the option for a prayer from the remainder of the audience & students. That in itself could be viewed by some or the majority of the community, as the very same.

It was presented earlier, graduation ceremonies are optional, not required. I know when I graduated from college, I was 1800 miles from the ceremony & received the paper in the mail. My younger brother almost opted out of his graduation from high school due to his band's travel schedule (he was a professional musician) but was able to make it. This kid should've opted out rather than imposing his view on the masses or kept quiet.


----------



## Darksoul (May 20, 2011)

-This may be a moot point but did the kid really have the option to not attend the ceremony? I had to attend my high school's graduation ceremony. Did he know before hand what would happen during the ceremony? If he did, I would think he could have justified his absence from it and not caused such a ruckus.

But again, did he have a choice? I personally have found silence to be the better choice, sometimes. Either way, it will be a good learning experience for him.

Andrew


----------



## Big Don (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's both.


Not according to the letter of the US Constitution


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Who's to say "what's best for society?"
> 
> _*Which*_ society?



A secular society like ours. 


> *DarkSoul*
> -This may be a moot point but did the kid really have the option to not attend the ceremony?



It probably would have been fine. However I do think that he was likely someone who has been dealing with something for a while, and saw this as an opportunity to do something about it. Some have said 'attention whoring'. I don't *entirely* disagree, as I'm sure attention was obviously wanted. But many here think it was just some 'teenage angst' or something. Nah




> Bill Mattocks
> I'm pretty sure you're aware of it, but just to double check - I didn't make the statement you replied to here.


Sorry. No. It was for TF. I haven't figured out how to 'multi quote' yet. For this one post, I copy and paste each thing then write your names up top and put in bold. Very tedious. 


> *clfsean*True he didn't insult or blasphem



What's wrong with 'blaspheme'? 
 I didn't wanna repeat 'bullocks' before, and just put 'BS', since they mean the same thing. Or did you really mean 'testicles'?


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> **** him
> 
> i got no sympathy for little mr "i dont believe"
> 
> He can sit there and contemplate his navel for all I care.




You cry stalker when someone questions your opinion, laughable though it is, and yet here you are just the epitome of diplomacy....

I even disagree with him to, but that just didnt to be, loser


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> A secular society like ours.


 
Really? "Like ours?" Based upon which demographic would that be, exactly? I mean, you can say we have a secular _government_, and I wouldn't argue the point, though some might, but a "secular* society*?"


I don't know which of our United States you live in, but based on this,  I think it's the one in your imagination.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

ganglian said:


> I even disagree with him to, but that just didnt to be, loser




translation please?


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What's wrong with 'blaspheme'?
> I didn't wanna repeat 'bullocks' before, and just put 'BS', since they mean the same thing. Or did you really mean 'testicles'?


 
Blasphem... much like "to bleve" as stated by Miracle Max.

Nah... Bollocks is Bollcks.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Really? "Like ours?" Based upon which demographic would that be, exactly? I mean, you can say we have a secular _government_, and I wouldn't argue the point, though some might, but a "secular* society*?"
> 
> 
> I don't know which of our United States you live in, but based on this,  I think it's the one in your imagination.




QFT

we are in no way shape or form a secular society


----------



## Flea (May 20, 2011)

He shouldn't have to skip it.  It's his ceremony, at his school amongst his peers, celebrating a major milestone of his life. He earned it through hard work, just like (one hopes) everyone else there. And even if his attendance wasn't required by the district,  one mustn't underestimate the power of family pressure. If all the grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, godparents and family friends had already ponied up for gifts and plane tickets, he may have been better off facing the wrath of his neighbors.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

As an 'outsider' who also has something of an 'inside track' thanks to talking with you fellows, I have to say that America is a bit schitzo when it comes to this issue of whether you are a secular society or not.

In certain parts of the States, then no, those places are most assuredly not secular.  In others, then yes, very much a secular, rationalist/humanist ethos.  

Historically, a 'closed' social circle in a particular region will retain it's myth-culture longer than a more open and socially fluid area, particularly if there is a disparity in wealth.  It's a positive feedback loop - if everyone believes in a creator-deity then everyone grows up to believe in a creator-deity.  If most people feel that such religious/magical/shamaic traditions belong with our more primitive ancestors, then people are more likely to grow up not accepting that a creator-deity is a suitable explanation for why the universe is the way it is.

I don't know enough detail of American demographics tho' to say if it is a clear North/South divide on this?  Can you chaps elaborate?


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> translation please?




you're a second rate abusive troll who doesn't like being called on it. clear enough?


----------



## Flea (May 20, 2011)

Now, there's no reason to get personal here.  Not when we can let the Rapture sort us all out tomorrow.  

:boing2:


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

If such a place is so horrible, then why hasn't he taken responsibility upon himself to _leave_?   

He wouldn't give a a rat's backside what the town thinks if he was getting ready to move out of the Bible Belt for college in an area that he believes is more hospitable to his worldview.  We'd love to have his tuition dolla.....errrr....I mean, we'd love to have a bright, thinking person gracing the colleges in New Hampshire. 




> A survey suggests that people in *New Hampshire and Vermont* *are less likely than other Americans to attend weekly services *and only  54% say that they are "absolutely certain there is a God" compared to  71% in the rest of the nation.*New Hampshire and Vermont are also* *at the lowest levels among states in  religious commitment*. About 23% percent of the respondents attend  religious service at least once a week (39% nationally). Thirty-six  percent said religion is very important to them (56% nationally).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_hampshire


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Really? "Like ours?" Based upon which demographic would that be, exactly? I mean, you can say we have a secular _government_, and I wouldn't argue the point, though some might, but a "secular* society*?"
> 
> 
> I don't know which of our United States you live in, but based on this,  I think it's the one in your imagination.



Hehehe. You are probably right, my friend. Likely, my imagination. Also, I am likely using the word 'society' in a way that you are not. Or I am ignorant to how most use it etc. 



> *Carol*
> If such a place is so horrible, then why hasn't he taken responsibility upon himself to leave?



You can't say anything without something throwing this argument out there. 
Person A:  " I disagree with the way our healthcare system is here in the USA. "
Person B: " *Oh yeah? Well, maybe you should just move!*"

_just_ move?

Not so easy for some people.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

sure it is, 

if you aint happy? LEAVE

it is very simple


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Hehehe. You are probably right, my friend. Likely, my imagination. Also, I am likely using the word 'society' in a way that you are not. Or I am ignorant to how most use it etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That comparison is not equal in logical force.


Considering more people move upon graduation of high school than at any other point in their life, it is not an unreasonable scenario to posit. Typically at that stage of the game, young folks do not have to decide between academiocs and childrearing, spousal needs, or creditor's demands.  There are many people who, in high school, did not like where they were...or where they were headed, and took action.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

*-Admin Notice-

Enough of the personal shots.  Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.

See someone else breaking them?
Report it.  That's this thing here:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Can't stand the other person? Then put the SOB on your 'ignore' list, or grow a thicker skin already. 
 Just because they disagree with you, isn't a rules violation. 
Being a jackass is. 

Back to the bloody original topic.
*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I haven't figured out how to 'multi quote' yet. For this one post, I copy and paste each thing then write your names up top and put in bold. Very tedious.



Click on this by each post you want to quote 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



It will turn orange.
When ready, then click the QUOTE button and it'll stack n link everything for you.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

i have never done that, thats cool


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

> *Twin Fist
> *
> sure it is,
> 
> ...






Carol said:


> That comparison is not equal in logical force.
> 
> 
> Considering more people move upon graduation of high school than at any other point in their life, it is not an unreasonable scenario to posit. Typically at that stage of the game, young folks do not have to decide between academiocs and childrearing, spousal needs, or creditor's demands.  There are many people who, in high school, did not like where they were...or where they were headed, and took action.



This is just a poor argument. Some places in the world have really crappy laws. Like Iran, Afganistan.......

I could go on forever, of course. But you can't just say " oh well _just_ move"

New Hampshire too. I'm sure there are things that you may think should change for the better of humanity. Yeah you could just move. But _congratulations_ you're not part of the solution.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

if what YOU (not you, the generic "you") want violates the local idea of "acceptable" you have two choices:

shut up

or

leave

nothing complicated about it


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> sure it is,
> 
> if you aint happy? LEAVE
> 
> it is very simple





Twin Fist said:


> if what YOU (not you, the generic "you") want violates the local idea of "acceptable" you have two choices:
> 
> shut up
> 
> ...


Wow. Thanks for sharing your infinite wisdom with us.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> This is just a poor argument. Some places in the world have really crappy laws. Like Iran, Afganistan.......
> 
> I could go on forever, of course. But you can't just say " oh well _just_ move"
> 
> New Hampshire too. I'm sure there are things that you may think should change for the better of humanity. Yeah you could just move. But _congratulations_ you're not part of the solution.



So you believe that Louisiana is equal in comparison to Iran or Afghanistan, and that moving to a state within the U.S. that is more hospitable to one's worldview is equivalent to an international relocation from a third world country?  How is that a rational analogy?


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Carol said:


> So you believe that Louisiana is equal in comparison to Iran or Afghanistan, and that moving to a state within the U.S. that is more hospitable to one's worldview is equivalent to an international relocation from a third world country?  How is that a rational analogy?




Ok. All 50 states are good to go. No new things need to be added or stripped away. Health care's good. Judicial system's good. Economy is good. Crime is fine. We're good. If you don't like it, _just_ move away. Perfect.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Ok. All 50 states are good to go. No new things need to be added or stripped away. Health care's good. Judicial system's good. Economy is good. Crime is fine. We're good. If you don't like it, _just_ move away. Perfect.



Are you saying that I said that?  If so, please cite the specific quotes where I did.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> . Also, I am likely using the word 'society' in a way that you are not. Or I am ignorant to how most use it etc..


 
So how, exactly, are *you *_using_ it?

So that it fits with "a secular society like _ours_?"


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Carol said:


> Are you saying that I said that?  If so, please cite the specific quotes where I did.


I'm just sayin some things in some places are not the best they could be, and some people would like them to change and will get up and do something about it.  And not just....move away. 


elder999 said:


> So how, exactly, are *you *_using_ it?
> 
> So that it fits with "a secular society like _ours_?"



Our country is founded on secular principles for the good of our society. Our language has tons of words that has tons of meanings.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'm just sayin some things in some places are not the best they could be, and some people would like them to change and will get up and do something about it.  And not just....move away.



That I can get behind completely.  :asian:


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

So Mr. Fowler graduated, and apparantly no one booed him when he took the stage for his diploma (which is a good thing)

However....they did pray.

Note that this appears to be a staff/faculty member leading the prayer, and not a student.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLpZIv8xFY&feature=player_embedded


----------



## fangjian (May 20, 2011)

Carol said:


> So Mr. Fowler graduated, and apparantly no one booed him when he took the stage for his diploma (which is a good thing)
> 
> However....they did pray.
> 
> ...



Hahahahah. Awesome. Creepy hearing them all do the lords prayer. It's like when I was in basic training and our drill instructors had us all chant 'one shot one kill' one day, for like 15 minutes. lolz


----------



## Big Don (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Creepy hearing them all do the lords prayer.


Yeah, using their freedom is creepy...


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2011)

My bad, she wasn't a faculty member, she was a student

http://www.bastropenterprise.com/newsnow/x1796494554/Just-like-any-other-graduation


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2011)

Flea said:


> He shouldn't have to skip it. It's his ceremony, at his school amongst his peers, celebrating a major milestone of his life. He earned it through hard work, just like (one hopes) everyone else there. And even if his attendance wasn't required by the district, one mustn't underestimate the power of family pressure. If all the grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, godparents and family friends had already ponied up for gifts and plane tickets, he may have been better off facing the wrath of his neighbors.


 
True enough, but he's 1 out of "X" many who don't object. I also guarantee that this isn't the first time he's been at a school system/public event where there's been a prayer involved. 

He could've done the really hard thing (to him I guess) and kept his opinions/beliefs to himself & let the rest have their prayer. I'm also going out on a limb & saying he's done that in the past, apparently with no ill effects. 

As to the family pressure, yes that's also a very distinct possibility. Again... what would it have hurt to not go through all the unnecessary drama & such, and just kept his mouth shut? Like I said, I betcha it's not the first event he's kept his mouth shut at. 

But oh well... moving along... everybody has their own viewpoint & position. Tit for tat.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Our country is founded on secular principles for the good of our society. Our language has tons of words that has tons of meanings.


 
Our country's _government_ is founded on secular principles for the good of our society. Our society(s) is(are) founded on a variety of principles, and our Founder's words have meanings in reference to our society(s), then and now. 

In the society to which this lad belongs, if only because of geography, God is an expectation, religion the rule. It's just that simple. 

Not so funny story: went to a family reunion a few years back, for Rita's (that's the wife) mom. In Plainview, Texas. That's Hale county.

Red.....neck....ville. Cotton farms, melons, tractors and flat land as far as the eye can see.

Warned Rita, (that's the wife!) _we should bring booze, it could be a dry county._

_Oh, no,_ she said. _That couldn't be, and we can't have booze buried deep in our luggage with my *mom* in the car.We'll get it there._

Ok, I says. So we drive to Amarillo, head south to Plainview, and we're there for the weekend. We check into our hotel, find the Oddfellows Hall where the reunion is taking place, find a place to work out, and thenlook for a place to get booze. 

And look.

And _look._

*And look.*

Finally stop in a convenience store, and ask my favorite Spanish question of the girl behind the counter,_ ¿dónde están las bebidas adultas frescas?_, only in English, because we weren't in *that* part of Texas, _Where are the frosty, adult beverages?_

_*In Lubbock. 30 miles south. This is a dry county.*_

_So the wife and I lived through the hell of a weekend with the redneck farmer relatives without liquid lubrication. :lol:_

Had a conversation, completely sober, with her very intelligent farmer cousin, and his [extremely intelligent (coming from me that means *a lot.'*)13 year old son, about how his son could read all sorts of things,but not Harry Potter*,* _because Harry Potter teaches that good can come from something that's evil:witchcraft*.*_ To which I wanted to scream_*,* Harry Potter and its witchcraft are complete fictions, you dolt!_

But I was really good, and didn't say anything. It was totally worth it. For other reasons, I had a really good time. The food was lousy, and one of her older relatives kept giving me the fish eye, but another one, her uncle Dwight-70 years old, John Deere cap, Justin boots,_and he actually had_ _*a red neck,*_ shook my hand and said_*,* Proud to know you. Take good care of Rita*.*_ Made my year, just about.

Anyway, over in Plainview, where there are lots, and lots, and *lots* of churches, the libraries probably _don't_ have _Harry Potter,_ and there *isn't one goddam liquor store......* .....that is *not* a "secular society." 

In fact, it's kinda medieval, but it's okay, if you're capable of being tolerant, the way we expect other people to be......


----------



## fangjian (May 21, 2011)

Hehe Funny story. I've only been to the northern most part of Texas near Ft Sill Ok. 




> In fact, it's kinda medieval, but it's okay, if you're capable of being tolerant, the way we expect other people to be.....




Sounds interesting. Nothing wrong with churches on every block and dry counties. I encourage  freedom of expression and blah blah blah. I don't like either of those things which is obvious but wouldn't deny people from doing that. Just as much as I hate drinking or even looking at Heineken. An awful beer with a terrible aftertaste. Another delusion that people are under the spell of. I wouldn't deny anyone from drinkin it though. I guess all I want is for things that go on, on state and gvt property to not endorse a specific....beer?  Like Heineken.


----------



## fangjian (May 21, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, using their freedom is creepy...


Hehhehe
Some people just do creepy things with their freedoms. That's cool. I'm sure some people think grappling with other guys is creepy. Cool.  


When I was in Iraq, the imam's would pray everyday over those loud intercoms. All of my friends were so creeped out by it on a daily basis. I really liked it. Sounds cool. Definitely more entertaining than what Christian mythology has to offer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> In fact, it's kinda medieval, but it's okay, if you're capable of being tolerant, the way we expect other people to be......



Community standards.  They have ordered their local society the way they wish it to be, and they do not violate anyone's constitutional rights to do it.

Do I want to live there?  NO! By the way, NC was much similar for me.

But it is what it is.

Those folks; or folks very much like them, complain bitterly about the local community standards in San Francisco on "Let's be creepy gay guys in leather thongs rubbing on people in our 'in your face parade Day'," and it's the same thing.

And everyone complains about the Hispanics living their non-assimilating lifestyles in their own small communities in the US, who are ALSO setting their own standards that no one except them likes but which also violate no constitutional rights.

This freedom thing is a *****.  We expect others to tolerate our foibles, we think theirs are not only weird, but wrong, and not covered under the concepts of 'freedom'.  (present company excepted).


----------



## fangjian (May 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Community standards.  They have ordered their local society the way they wish it to be, and they do not violate anyone's constitutional rights to do it.
> 
> Do I want to live there?  NO! By the way, NC was much similar for me.
> 
> ...





It's not an issue of just feeling like you are not  _part of the community_. Like a gay area of San Fran or a fundy town or Spanish Harlem. (like in your examples)  If that's the case then you can take Carol and TF's advice and _just move_.

The issue is religious endorsement on state property, no?  And where the line is drawn. What property? What people? etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 21, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The issue is religious endorsement on state property, no?  And where the line is drawn. What property? What people? etc.



That's the question that the courts wrestle with.  The fundamental question (sorry, no pun intended) is not what property, but whether or not the display, function, symbol, etc, infringes on the 'establishment' clause and they simultaneously juggle whether or not outlawing that same display, function, symbol, etc, would infringe on the 'free exercise' clause.

That's where community standards are often considered by the court.  And they are different in different places and times.

No one is ever satisfied by this compromise.  The only solution that would make one group happy would utterly alienate another.  But that's how many people understand democracy - be reasonable, do it my way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 21, 2011)

An example of the ongoing struggle over what is and what is not 'establishment of religion' by the state, and what is and what is not acceptable to community standards.  The cross, through all of this, has not moved (except when it was burned and later stolen).  It is the minds and hearts of the people who live here that have changed, it is the court's interpretations that have changed.  The cross has remained where it was.  Legal, illegal, public, private, loved and hated.  All this over a small symbol deep in the heart of the desert.  People are strange, IMHO.  But that's just me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Memorial_Cross



> The *Mojave Memorial Cross* is a cross formerly on public land in the Mojave desert that was at the center of the Salazar v. Buono legal case before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1][2][3] The original cross was erected in 1934 to honor those killed in war.[4] The cross has been maintained by volunteers[5] and was reconstructed after being destroyed.[5]  It was boarded up after lower court rulings declared it illegal because  of separation of church and state constitutional concerns.
> On April 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled on Salazar v. Buono in a 5-4 decision that the cross may stay but also sent the case back to a lower court.[6]  The high court ruled there was no violation of the separation of church  and state when Congress transferred the land surrounding the cross to a  veteran's group.[6]  Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of  avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require  eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[7]
> As of May 10, 2010, the cross is no longer in place atop Sunrise Rock. It was stolen on the night of May 910, 2010.[8][9][10]  National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $125,000 reward  has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of  the thieves. The VFW  promised that the memorial will be rebuilt."This was a legal fight that  a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel  and their families," said National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell.[11]


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 21, 2011)

well if the Rapture happens today, the young Athiest really wont need any support will he?


----------



## granfire (May 21, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> well if the Rapture happens today, the young Athiest really wont need any support will he?



Or protection?


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 21, 2011)

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this as I didn't read completely through all the posts, but I do take my hat off to the kid for standing up for his rights and acting on what he feels is right, thinking for himself instead of just going with the herd. Which is a difficult thing to do at any age. It's easy to go along with everyone and try to fit in, it's alot harder to say this is the way I see things and there is merit to that because the law states this and I know it's right.

I'm not saying that he is right because the best action would be to speak out for what you see as right and at the same time take others rights and views at this time into consideration. A moment for everyone who is graduating is not wrong.

I do respect the actions of a kid who is taking action on what he thinks is right, and not being a follower, I just think he may be handling it wrong.


----------



## Carol (May 21, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It's not an issue of just feeling like you are not  _part of the community_. Like a gay area of San Fran or a fundy town or Spanish Harlem. (like in your examples)  If that's the case then you can take Carol and TF's advice and _just move_.
> 
> The issue is religious endorsement on state property, no?  And where the line is drawn. What property? What people? etc.



In Mr. Fowler's own words, it is (also) a matter of feeling like he is part of the community.  


"That's when the s(p)itstorm rolled in"
"everyone hates me...kind of worried about attending graduation now.  Its attracted more hostility than I thought"
"my reasoning...is that it's emotionally stressing on anyone who isn't Christian"
"I'm one of maybe three atheists in this town"
"One of the others  is afraid to come out of the (atheist) closet."
"Wish me luck at graduation."
"They refuse to listen."
"The whole town hates me, aside from a few atheists that are silently supporting"
"If anyone would like to offer support..."
"Thanks for the support. Its really helping. This has just gotten sickening."
These comments are not about constitutionality, black letter law, majority opinions, or the like.  These are comments about acceptance.


----------



## Carol (May 21, 2011)

Found this online, thought it was interesting to read about.

SCOTUS:  Abington School District vs. Schempp, 1963



> Facts of the Case:
> The Abington case concerns Bible-reading in  Pennsylvania public schools. At the beginning of the school day,  students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were  required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing  these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township  students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students could be excluded from  these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school. In a  related case -- Murray v. Curlett -- a Baltimore statute required  Bible-reading or the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at open exercises  in public schools. Murray and his mother, professed atheists --  challenged the prayer requirement.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> In Mr. Fowler's own words, it is (also) a matter of feeling like he is part of the community.
> 
> 
> "That's when the s(p)itstorm rolled in"
> ...



Of course he will feel isolated. He is just looking for other like minded people to know about the issue so he doesn't feel so alone. I don't see the problem. 
The main issue is of a legal one, and not him just _feeling lonely_. 

It's like if a black dude was living all by himself in some white town. Some legal issue of racial discrimination pops up and he sues. It's real _iffy_ because the racist peoples' _actions_ may actually be legal.  Now he feels isolated cause of the s(p)it storm, and asking for some support online from around the country, so he doesn't feel so alone. 

Nothing wrong with asking for support. The real issue is the *legal one*. Telling the black guy to _just move away_ is no good. It would be good advice if their was *no possible legal issue* and he just felt _lonely_. Just like Damon Fowler.


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> .
> 
> It's like if a black dude was living all by himself in some white town. Some legal issue of racial discrimination pops up and he sues. It's real _iffy_ because the racist peoples' _actions_ may actually be legal. Now he feels isolated cause of the s(p)it storm, and asking for some support online from around the country, so he doesn't feel so alone.


 
I'm sorry; as "a black dude" who grew up in the only black family in some white neighborhood, I gotta say it's nothing like that at all. 

Guy didn't have to out himself as an atheist, and no one would have known. Kinda hard to hide your skin color.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I'm sorry; as "a black dude" who grew up in the only black family in some white neighborhood, I gotta say it's nothing like that at all.
> 
> Guy didn't have to out himself as an atheist, and no one would have known. Kinda hard to hide your skin color.



What's the matter with saying 'black dude'  ?

Anyways, when forming an analogy, you're not gonna get a situation that is *exactly* like the other. 

Yes you can hide what's going on in your cerebral cortex but, it *is* analogous. 

Fine.  No matter. Substitute the Damon Fowler story with a christian living in a muslim area in the USA. If muslim mythology was enacted in the same way on state property and time, and the christian made a big deal about in questioning its legality, the said christian would have my full support. 

Is that not analogous either, because it's not *exactly* the same thing?


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What's the matter with saying 'black dude' ?


 
Nothing.



fangjian said:


> Anyways, when forming an analogy, you're not gonna get a situation that is *exactly* like the other.
> 
> Yes you can hide what's going on in your cerebral cortex but, it *is* analogous.


 
It's not analagous because I haven't figured out a method of discerning whether or not a person is an atheist other than their telling me as much.

On the other hand, you usually just have to open your eyes, and you can clearly see that a black dude is, in fact, a "black dude."

In one instance you've  offered, the  the aggrieved party, Damon Fowler,  is pointing out an offense-legal or social-that the offenders might not even be aware of. 

In the other instance, the aggrieved party (the hypothetical "black dude") is pointing out a deliberate-though, as posited by you, possibly legal-offense, that the offenders simply have to be completely aware of.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Completely analogous in Damon Fowler's case though. It's out now, and everybody knows it, just as they know he is a 'white dude'. 

Person is in isolation in their community. Also, the community is partaking in activities that are legally questionable. The person brings it to the attention of the law. The person is now in a bit more fear and asks for support from others around the country that may have interest. 

Analogous.


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Also, the community is partaking in activities that are legally questionable. .


 
This is debatable-in fact, in most cases where it has been _legally_ debated, it has been decided that the activity in question is legal. This may have as much to do with the community's hostility toward him as anything-he essentially bluffed the school superintendent into making the wrong call, for fear of litigation. The superintendent should have told the little **** to go ahead and go to the ACLU, and left the ceremony alone-in fact, it's the superintendent who's due more than a little bit of the hostility.

And it's not as though they're hostile towards him because he's an atheist and he's going to hell-they're hostile towards him for screwing up their ceremony.

And you should consider the word, "ceremony." Once again, from the Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual



> *cer·e·mo·ny*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;ser-&#601;-&#716;m&#333;-n&#275;, &#712;se-r&#601;-\
> _plural_ *cer·e·mo·nies*
> ...


 
Kid's reaping what he sowed.

EDIT: On the other hand, it *is* illegal to have a prayer at a high school graduation. The Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman, decided this back in 1992.



> _"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you_.&#8221; *Matthew 6:5-7*


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Of course he will feel isolated. He is just looking for other like minded people to know about the issue so he doesn't feel so alone. I don't see the problem.
> The main issue is of a legal one, and not him just _feeling lonely_.
> 
> It's like if a black dude was living all by himself in some white town. Some legal issue of racial discrimination pops up and he sues. It's real _iffy_ because the racist peoples' _actions_ may actually be legal.  Now he feels isolated cause of the s(p)it storm, and asking for some support online from around the country, so he doesn't feel so alone.
> ...



Will you please point to where in my posts   I am saying to move away and not take legal actions?  Please reference the exact quote.

You as the OP have not framed this discussion as the main issue a legal issue.   

The topic of the thread is "Young atheist needs suppor*t*"  Needing support is more about feeling lonely than the matter of law.

This is the few lines of the article you posted.  They are quoted verbatim.  All emphasis is his.  



> My graduation from high school is this Friday. I live in the Bible Belt of the United States.


In your own words, what point is Mr. Fowler trying to make with this opening line?



> *The school was going to perform a prayer at graduation, but due  to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against  Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if  they ignored me, they ceased it. *


This means the school did the right thing by deciding against the prayer, does it not?  If not, how do you interpret this?
*



			The school backed down, but that&#8217;s when  the shitstorm rolled in.
		
Click to expand...

*
So the school does the right thing, but Mr. Fowler is concerned about the "shitstorm". 

Your initial comment mentions the separation of church and state, absolutely.  But the discussion was never framed as solely a legal one, there was much that was posited as an emotional one as well.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> If such a place is so horrible, then why hasn't he taken responsibility upon himself to _leave_?



Here is your quote, which I interpret as "Stop being such a beech, and just move away if you feel like you 'not one of them'"

Sometimes moving isn't an option for some people. 



> You as the OP have not framed this discussion as the main issue a legal issue.
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Young atheist needs support" Needing support is more about feeling lonely than the matter of law.



Yes yes. Very true. It is more about emotional support from others that can let themselves be heard and show that town that he is not some freak 'anomaly'. 


> In your own words, what point is Mr. Fowler trying to make with this opening line?


ummm. That he'll be graduating from school this Friday, and he lives in the 'Bible Belt'. ?
Sorry I don't know. What do you mean?



> This means the school did the right thing by deciding against the prayer, does it not? If not, how do you interpret this?



Well, it's the right thing to do, *to me*. But I am curious if it also did have any legal basis as these things are 'kinda a grey area'. Bill Mattocks was a big help btw, and cleared up a few misconceptions I had about a couple things. So thnx. 

Anyway. Eventually the thread became less about 'support for Damon', and more about, well, hmm, 'was it legal'?  Is it legal to have this prayer at the ceremony? Is it a big deal? Is it not?

So you are correct. It is about emotional support too. What's wrong with that? Maybe he can't leave yet. Maybe he's got a babymama or something   Maybe he's got..............

Atheists are the most hated group of people in America. This is true. Of course it's easy to stay in the closet, if you want. But when it's out, it's a sheet storm, and people get hostile. So I don't blame him for asking others to show his town, that he's not some freak.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> This is debatable-in fact, in most cases where it has been _legally_ debated, it has been decided that the activity in question is legal. This may have as much to do with the community's hostility toward him as anything-he essentially bluffed the school superintendent into making the wrong call, for fear of litigation. The superintendent should have told the little **** to go ahead and go to the ACLU, and left the ceremony alone-in fact, it's the superintendent who's due more than a little bit of the hostility.
> 
> And it's not as though they're hostile towards him because he's an atheist and he's going to hell-they're hostile towards him for screwing up their ceremony.
> 
> ...


 

I don't completely disagree with any of this. I agree that the superintendent really shoulda' called him out. 


.*....with no deep significance*. 

 It definitely has deep significance to them, otherwise they wouldn't care.





> EDIT: On the other hand, it *is* illegal to have a prayer at a high school graduation. The Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman, decided this back in 1992.



ummm oh.  So is that our answer?   Kind of, at least?


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Atheists are the most hated group of people in America. This is true. .


 
People disagree, they don't necessarily "get hostile." Most of us (non-atheists) just really don't care. A few people I've met (relatives) were completely ignorant that there was such a person as an atheist. 

I really, really, don't care. I don't make any judgement in this regard-heck, I raised my kids to think for themselves. My son's what he calls a "radical agnostic": _I don't know, and neither do you._ :lol: My daughter became a Catholic.....I think I'd prefer she were a radical agnostic. :lfao:

On the other hand, "logically and scientifically" *labeling* people's dearly and sometimes deeply held beliefs as "psuedosicence," "myth," and, worst of all, "superstition," *is* hostile, and insulting(sometimes intentionally)-though technically correct in some respects-and can only be expected to be met with equal hostility.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> People disagree, they don't necessarily "get hostile." Most of us (non-atheists) just really don't care. A few people I've met (relatives) were completely ignorant that there was such a person as an atheist.



Hahaha. Yes. My aunt said to me " What's up with all of this stuff youpost on Facebook lately. What are you some kind of Atheist or something"    *"Yeah"*  " Ahh. Well, don't worry you're still a good person".    lolz


> I really, really, don't care. I don't make any judgement in this regard-heck, I raised my kids to think for themselves. My son's what he calls a "radical agnostic": _I don't know, and neither do you._



By definition your son is an Agnostic Atheist. Like me. 





> On the other hand, "logically and scientifically" *labeling* people's dearly and sometimes deeply held beliefs as "psuedosicence," "myth," and, worst of all, "superstition," *is* hostile, and insulting(sometimes intentionally)-though technically correct in some respects-and can only be expected to be met with equal hostility.


Very true. I do expect some people to be mad at what I say. 

New York Giants are awesome ( I nearly got ambushed at a Philadelphia Eagles game). People are *so* sensitive. They need a thicker skin. 

Stuff like 'A God Hypethesis' is a part of science. Cosmology/Cosmogony. And when someone asserts it as true. I don't mind calling it out. Cause if you wanna 'play scientist', you're view can be scrutinized with all of the rest of the hypotheses. 

-oh no, is this where our thread is gonna go now?!


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

Oh, and I dispute that "atheists" are the "most hated group in America."


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Oh, and I dispute that "atheists" are the "most hated group in America."



African Americans ?  Muslims?  Gays?

You can find MANY studies about peoples' views on Atheists/non believers, though.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/1...eists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/


http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> African Americans ? Muslims? Gays?


 
Any of those might be possible-though they are also subject to the same indifference I have towards atheists- but I think it changes from time to time, and right now it's probably _illegal aliens _that are the most hated group.


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I don't completely disagree with any of this. I agree that the superintendent really shoulda' called him out.
> 
> 
> .*....with no deep significance*.
> ...


 
It has no deep significance to_ Damon Fowler_, though-far easier to roll one's eyes, or whatever; it is, however, illegal, as I posted-I did not know this until I bothered looking
according to the court case, they simply cannot have a representative of an organized religion delivering a blessing, benediction or prayer.

The valedictorian, or other student making a speech, _could_ make a prayer part of their speech, though, and _invite_ everyone to participate. This is 1st Amendment protected.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The valedictorian, or other student making a speech, _could_ make a prayer part of their speech, though, and _invite_ everyone to participate. This is 1st Amendment protected.



Yeah. This is what I had been assuming recently.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

maybe people wouldnt be so hostile to the atheist if the athiest wasnt so goddamn cocky, calling everyone else guillible fools and dismissing the beliefs as "fairy tales"

kind of makes me want to kick athiest in the nuts too....and I am an easy going guy....


----------



## Big Don (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> maybe people wouldn't be so hostile to the atheist if the atheists weren't so goddamn cocky, calling everyone else gullible fools and dismissing the beliefs as "Fairy tales."
> 
> Kind of makes me want to kick atheists in the nuts too... and I am an easy going guy...


QFT and to correct spelling and punctuation.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> maybe people wouldnt be so hostile to the atheist if the athiest wasnt so goddamn cocky, calling everyone else guillible fools and dismissing the beliefs as "fairy tales"



An important point that needs to be taken into consideration. Nobody likes arrogance. A point that does get brought up in the _atheist community_ from time to time. How can we say 'To believe in something without evidence, is irrational", without sounding like a deeckhead?

 But people are _offended_ way to easily. 
Well, I voted for Obama. It was my _belief_ that he was the better option for the country at the time. You can not call out my _belief_, as that would be _rude_. And don't you dare bring out any evidence or lack there of, that may call my claim into question. 
 I am deeply offended by all of your anti Obama posts.  

Silly right, TF?

Islam is the religion of peace. Don't call that into question either, as people may take _offense_.


----------



## Big Don (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> An important point that needs to be taken into consideration. Nobody likes arrogance. A point that does get brought up in the _atheist community_ from time to time. How can we say 'To believe in something without evidence, is irrational", without sounding like a deeckhead?


 I don't know. I do appreciate you asking. You don't see many Christians running around telling atheists they are going to Hell... There are a very vocal few, but, not many...





> But people are _offended_ way to easily.


 Absolutely





> Islam is the religion of peace. Don't call that into question either, as people may take _offense_.


and go boom


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> 'To believe in something without evidence, is irrational",.


 
If you say it just like that, then you don't sound like a dick-head at all. 

As someone who "believes in something" without "evidence," and a scientist, I'll admit that it's clearly irrational.

Nothing rational about it at all. So? Are we simply and solely creatures of rationality? Are we even creatures that are primarily rational? Do we even agree on what "rationality" is?
I'd say *no*-we are more than simply rational creatures, and not primarily rational, and, I'd add, not always irrational to anyone's detriment, including our own.



> *IRRATIONAL*
> 
> *:* not rational: as
> _a __(1)_ *:* not endowed with reason or understanding
> ...


 
Love is irrational. 



There often isn't anything "rational" about the things that make us laugh the most.

Or the clothes we wear.

Or the foods we eat. 

The vehicles we choose to drive.

These last three because they are by choice, just as believing is for many-and, in this country, simply "believing" is a choice.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

if you hold your politics as tightly as some people hold thier religion, i am not sure wether to be scared or amused....


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Far as I can tell, the difference between religious thought and political views is mighty thin in our country these days.

Lot of Republicans running around thinking Democrats are immoral, dangerous and worth less as people because they choose do believe differently.

Lot of Democrats feeling the same way about the Republicans.

And both seem to base their beliefs primarily on somebody else's interpretation of canonized dogma.

It's like Bosnia, only with fewer murders and land mines.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> If you say it just like that, then you don't sound like a dick-head at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We are obviously off topic, but I will respond anyways. I am somewhat of a noob here as well so I'm not knowledgable of the policies on _straying off topic_, but anyway,

I do sound like a deeckhead if I say something, even like that. It's one of those things that there is no nice way to say it. 

Love is one of those things that is always brought up. Science, including Evolutionary Biology, and Neuroscience, have* quite a bit* to say about things like _love_, _good_ and _evil_. All of it very fascinating, and IMO very accurate. 





> As someone who "believes in something" without "evidence," and a scientist, I'll admit that it's clearly irrational.


This sentence tells me that you are a scientist and you have a held belief which lacks evidential support. If I am correct, what science do you do research in and, would you share this _belief_?


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Love is one of those things that is always brought up. Science, including Evolutionary Biology, and Neuroscience, have* quite a bit* to say about things like _love_, _good_ and _evil_. All of it very fascinating, and IMO very accurate.


 
Accurate, perhaps, but they don't make "love" _rational_ at all.



fangjian said:


> This sentence tells me that you are a scientist


 
Yeah, I've got a PhD. in physics.I worked at Los Alamos National Lab for 13 years....I've talked about the things that I did there _that I can talk about_, and around the things that I can't talk about on this board for years.




fangjian said:


> and you have a held belief which lacks evidential support.


 
I've got evidential support, but, being completely subjective, relatively unduplicable or mostly unduplicable, it doesn't satisfy the scientific evidentiary standard.

Satisfies *mine*, though. :lol:




fangjian said:


> If I am correct, what science do you do research in and, would you share this _belief_?


 
I don't do research any more-I started my career in power plants, and never really wanted to be a physicist-they made me do it so I could order people around that held PhD.'s without their noses getting out of joint. I was perfectly happy being an engineer, and I've finally, after one more detour, gotten back to power plants.....

I've shared my beliefs elsewhere, though it's likely that I've talked around them more than I have nuclear weapons.:lol:

You can have a look here, 'cause, yeah, talking about my beliefs would almost certainly be a thread drift of tsunamic proportions. :lfao:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

On the original subject...

Many schools observe a "moment of silence" where you can pray to anyone or nobody, think long thoughts, meditate or check out the keister of whomever stands in front of you.

If memory serves, my high school (20 years ago) had an optional separate religious service (Bacclaureate, manby?) that you could go to if so inclined.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of middle ground for folks to stand on without a)ruining everybody else's fun or b)forcing the minority to play a game he didn't sign up for


On the subject of "just leave"...

Fair enough to say that now (or soon), but since this is about high school graduation the lad likely didn't have much control over his location.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> On the original subject...
> 
> Many schools observe a "moment of silence" where you can pray to anyone or nobody, think long thoughts, meditate or check out the keister of whomever stands in front of you.
> 
> If memory serves, my high school (20 years ago) had an optional separate religious service (Bacclaureate, manby?) that you could go to if so inclined.



  thats what we had when i graduated


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

And you're older than I am (I'm guessing from some of your comments)

Have we slid backwards? Or is LA just now getting around to stuff TX and OR solved two decades ago?

In a related note, the school board in my town spent a whole session last week changing "Winter Break" back to "Christmas Break"


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Here is your quote, which I interpret as "Stop  being such a beech, and just move away if you feel like you 'not one of  them'"
> 
> Sometimes moving isn't an option for some people.
> 
> ...



Nah, not saying he's a beech.  Or a birch.  Just saying he's likely not without alternative options. 

For  me I busted *** in high school to get in to get where I wanted to go,  and knew of many others that did the same.  That meant doing boring  stuff for a very long time such as spending weekends in the library  rather than going out with friends (good practice for engineering  work...LOL), pleading to organizations to get a $500 scholarship, not  getting pregnant, etc.  

 He doesn't sound like he's thrilled being in the Bible Belt, chances are he doesn't have to stay if he doesn't want  to and he's had time to prepare for a change.  But...as you said, maybe he has his reasons for staying, and he  wants to make the best of where he is.



> On the subject of "just leave"...
> 
> Fair enough to say that now (or soon), but since this is about high  school graduation the lad likely didn't have much control over his  location.



Of course.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Carol, you and I agree often, but if you could enlighten me?

In your mind, what's the difference between "Just leave" and "Love it or leave it, hippie!"


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

Edit: double post.


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

I didn't say "just leave".

But I am wondering why he is staying if such a place is so horrible. Chances are we'd love to have him going to school up here.  Many of the people that are voicing support for him around the web are making similar comments, example:  "Come to New York, there are less crazy people here."


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> I didn't say "just leave".
> 
> But I am wondering why he is staying if such a place is so horrible.  We'd love to have him going to school up here.  Many of the people that are voicing support for him around the web are making similar comments.  "Come to New York, there are less crazy people here."



He JUST graduated high school. There's no reason why he would've moved anywhere. 

"Come to NY there are less crazy people." hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> If such a place is so horrible, then why hasn't he taken responsibility upon himself to _leave_?



You didn't say "just"...


----------



## Big Don (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> "Come to NY there are less crazy people." hahahahahahahahahaha


There is a different (and far wider variety) of crazy people...


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> He JUST graduated high school. There's no reason why he would've moved anywhere.



No reason at all?   No plans for living someplace for the summer working a summer job?  No plans on starting college early to get a jump on the requirements?  No plans to leave for a 4 year school in a few months?  No plans to join the service?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> No reason at all?   No plans for living someplace for the summer working a summer job?  No plans on starting college early to get a jump on the requirements?  No plans to leave for a 4 year school in a few months?  No plans to join the service?



Since all of those definitionally happen after he graduates.......they're not really relevant to the main point.


----------



## fangjian (May 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> If such a place is so horrible, then why hasn't he taken responsibility upon himself to _leave_?






Carol said:


> No reason at all?   No plans for living someplace for the summer working a summer job?  No plans on starting college early to get a jump on the requirements?  No plans to leave for a 4 year school in a few months?  No plans to join the service?



Idk. Maybe he has made plans. Maybe not. 

_Maybe_ this is all just a dream.


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Idk. Maybe he has made plans. Maybe not.
> 
> _Maybe_ this is all just a dream.



Not sure I want to see him in ruby slippers... :lol2:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Idk. Maybe he has made plans. Maybe not.
> 
> _Maybe_ this is all just a dream.



We just got Elder to _stop_ with the PK Dick quotes.....


----------



## Big Don (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> We just got Elder to _stop_ with the PK Dick quotes.....


and the "poetry"


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> We just got Elder to _stop_ with the PK Dick quotes.....


 

Hey, I was only a Dick for a day.....:lfao:



> When two people dream the same dream, it ceases to be an illusion
> -*Philip K. Dick,* _Lies, Inc._-appropriately enough...:lfao:


 


Big Don said:


> and the "poetry"


 
The poetry will* never* stop-it springs from a well that appears to be everlasting....:lfao:


----------



## Big Don (May 22, 2011)

*****


----------



## Blade96 (May 23, 2011)

Dag, the school didn't have to not preferm the prayer, the atheist in question should have been allowed to opt out of that portion of his graduation ceremony and the school could still do it. Everyone is happy.

Why couldn't they just do that.


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Dag, the school didn't have to not preferm the prayer, the atheist in question should have been allowed to opt out of that portion of his graduation ceremony and the school could still do it. Everyone is happy.
> 
> Why couldn't they just do that.



That would be non-confrontational and, like, nice and logical....
Who in the hell is going for that these days?!


----------



## Blade96 (May 23, 2011)

granfire said:


> That would be non-confrontational and, like, nice and logical....
> Who in the hell is going for that these days?!



Not many.

To our sorrow.


----------



## fangjian (May 26, 2011)

Similar story. Didn't hear about it till just now.



[yt]p0kYzTkFY_A[/yt]


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 26, 2011)

Interesting video. Assuming it's not as highly edited as most partisan videos, it seems like that report is a textbook case of yellow journalism. You could use it in classes as an example of what not to do....


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2011)

Altho' I am connected to the Net and have pretty fair search skillz {leet br0!} so I could find out with a quick Google, I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to what is meant by "yellow journalism"?  I get the contextural 'feel' of the term but would be interested in knowing more accurately how the term is being used.


----------



## Big Don (May 26, 2011)

> *yel·low jour·nal·ism*
> 
> Noun: Journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration


So, yeah, that was a pretty good example of it, alright.


----------

