Young atheist needs support

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

(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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

lol, I said more mature....

lol... quite right!!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.