Young atheist needs support

[fangjian]

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]

**** him

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

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

 

[fangjian]

**** 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]

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]

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

 

[fangjian]

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]

majority rules

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

 

[David43515]

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]

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]

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]

Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

 

[elder999]

Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

It's both.

 

[SensibleManiac]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.