"Fed court orders RI school to remove prayer mural"

I agree witht he action taken!

Wolseley said:

Institutionalized atheism has killed millions more people than any Christian body ever did. Just ask any victim of Stalin's purges or Mao's "Great Leap Forward".

Click to expand...

No, evil men who sought power promoted atheism as a political tool. The religious beliefs of these alleged atheists had nothing to do with the killings, rather those were political in nature.

Wolseley said:

Trying to remind kids of good and decent values evidently isn't anywhere near as important as making dead sure that the least smidgen of exposure to anything remotely considered (gasp!) Christian is totally eradicated from the surface of the planet.

Click to expand...

No one is trying to eradicate Christianity in this case. Rather, it is protecting students rights not to have Christianity forced upon them. As has been pointed out on this thread, you can remove the first and last lines and call it a school motto instead of a prayer; then all the same morals are taught without it violating students rights.

Wolseley said:

I mean, we have priorities, here, you know. If your kid grows up in an environment where it's not only okay, but encouraged, to go into the bushes and rut like swine, then go to a clinic and butcher the offspring produced by such couplings, for example, that's just fine----but heaven forbid they might ever be exposed to the concept of a Heavenly Father or a Hebrew word meaning "so be it".



They don't like to hear that, though. That's what we, as Christians, always hear, however, when we object to offensive material on TV: "Nobody says you have to watch it! Just turn it off!" Meanwhile, the culture corrodes more and more, and eventually we will be living in the societal equivalent of wading neck-deep in sewage and being told, "If you don't like the smell, just plug your nose!"

Remember: it's only offensive if they're offended; we don't count.

Click to expand...

You might have a point if you were forced to watch 8 hours of television per day but, last I checked, people watch television because they want to. Additionally, if you don't like a program, as you have mentioned, you are free to change the channel and watch something else -- including religious content. By contrast, children are required to attend school and are not allowed to "change the channel".

See what happens when an atheist in America stands up for herself? It's Christian "persecution".

Drekkan85 said:

It's not an option, because the thing existing in and of itself is the violation regardless of who sees it.

Click to expand...

And you're saying suppression of religious speech is not a violation regardless of who doesn't see its absence?

Again, it's not what you say, it's the absence of consistency in what you say that's the problem.

AtheistVet said:

See what happens when an atheist in America stands up for herself? It's Christian "persecution".

Click to expand...

She's not standing up for herself; she's standing up against her schoolmates.

That she would make a court case of it constitutes "persecution" of the plainest sort.

Much like the atheist Dan Savage conducts a cyberbullying campaign against Rick Santorum.

If that's what you're looking for, don't bother to attempt the argument. It's bullying your view against a religious one.

heymikey80 said:

And you're saying suppression of religious speech is not a violation regardless of who doesn't see its absence?

Again, it's not what you say, it's the absence of consistency in what you say that's the problem.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a suppression of speech. Those school kids are fully allowed to say what they wish, they can wear t-shirts they bring in with them with that prayer decaled on.

What they're NOT allowed to do is put something up on the school walls. The second they do it stops being their speech, and becomes the SCHOOL'S speech. That entity (a public school) is not eligible to engage in religious speech per the Establishment clause and the 14th amendment.

The kids can engage in whatever speech they want. The school cannot. Anything afixed to the school is the school's speech, not the kids/private group.

razeontherock said:

Ya know you're right, as far as endorsement. Except this isn't declared to be any "official" school prayer.

Click to expand...

Look back at the pictures. It very clearly labels it "School Prayer" it was hung up by the schools authorities.

Official 3 a : authoritative, authorized <official statement>
b : prescribed or recognized as authorized <an official language>

Authoritative 1 a : having or proceeding from authority : official <authoritative church doctrines>

Sorry, this is still bigotry you're expressing. No naivete on my part,...

Click to expand...

Bigotry 1 : the state of mind of a bigot

Bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Should you show me evidence that what I mentioned was a complete fabrication and that the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch-killings which still happen to this day never actually happened I will be glad to retract my statement.

If I say that the Nazi's killed millions of people, am I a bigot against Germans? If I say that the British Empire subjugated India among other nations, am I a bigot against British people? If I say the colonists nearly succeeded in committing complete genocide against the native Indians, am I being a bigot against Europeans? I am merely stating a fact. Christians carried out/are carrying out those things I mentioned.

No element of "Christian dogma" teaches to kill people.

Click to expand...

.

Depends on where you look. Exodus 22 18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. That's the problem with a book that contradicts itself. Different people will choose different parts to follow.

This is called a slant, not establishment of a specific religion. The only thing that's trying to be established is universally beneficial and agreeable values. And really, that wall hanging no doubt did little to nothing to accomplish that goal ...

Click to expand...

And yet in one of the other threads related to this it was pointed out that the school was given the option to keep the banner, so long as they removed the religious elements. They flat out refused. Something they would not have done if it was merely to establish beneficial and agreeable values. They wish to promote and endorse their religion.

heymikey80 said:

Not allowing it in a public space suppresses religious speech.

Click to expand...

The government does not have freedom of speech. These people can proclaim whatever beliefs they wish, and post whatever banners they want on their own time when they are not representing the US government. Why is this so hard to understand?

"government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution." O'Connor, concurring opinion regarding the National Motto.

Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Guess what, establishing an official Christian school prayer is not one of those "discrete category of cases".

Okay, let's go for the opposite. The absence of religious information is itself an instruction in an educational environment. It indicates that religiousness is not an educational corpus of knowledge.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of religion classes, especially when you get to college level. There is a HUGE difference between teaching about different religions, and officially endorsing a particular religion.

Wolseley said:

Institutionalized atheism has killed millions more people than any Christian body ever did. Just ask any victim of Stalin's purges or Mao's "Great Leap Forward".

Click to expand...

Where's the atheist holy book which says to do this? Where's the atheist holy men that call for the slaughter of theists? There is nothing in "Does not believe in a god" that would lead to anyone killing anyone else. That's slightly different than a religion whose holy book calls for the death of witches(or sorcerers depending on translation). Whether or not it's contradicted by other passages doesn't matter. When you have a holy book that is supposed to be followed by the faithful that contradicts itself, you will always have some people that choose one of them and others that choose the other one.

Also read up on Cult of personality. It resembles religion far greater than it resembles atheism.

"Often these cults are a form of political religion."

Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Did he do what he did because of his atheism? No. Were/are the people that committed the Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch killings Christian? Yes. Did they do that because they were Christian? Yes. Would they have done similar atrocities if they were not Christian? Maybe, maybe not. "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " - Steven Weinberg

Also, it's the percentages that matter, not the flat out number. I'd highly recommend you watch this 20 minute TED video:

Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com

Suffice to say, if the biblical Israelites or the Crusaders had our technology we'd most likely be extinct.

They don't like to hear that, though. That's what we, as Christians, always hear, however, when we object to offensive material on TV: "Nobody says you have to watch it! Just turn it off!"

Click to expand...

You do not have a constitutional right to not be offended; meanwhile, it is unconstitutional for the government to officially endorse a religion.

Woden84 said:

Where's the atheist holy book which says to do this?

Click to expand...

There's no holy book that includes this prayer either. Doesn't mean it shouldn't receive equal suppression of law.

And for the record, you may've missed Marx, Lenin, Stalin & Mao on religion.

Woden84 said:

The government does not have freedom of speech. These people can proclaim whatever beliefs they wish, and post whatever banners they want on their own time when they are not representing the US government. Why is this so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

Because this isn't the government. This is a school lunchroom.

What, you think the government represents a burger patty on a bun?

Why is it so hard to understand that people recognize the government has included religious acceptance and even condoned religion, without specifying which -- since the first President wrote his farewell address.

"In God We Trust" also comes to mind.

There's a great deal of continuity and it's easy to understand. Why is it so hard to understand indeed.

heymikey80 said:

Because this isn't the government. This is a school lunchroom.

What, you think the government represents a burger patty on a bun?

Why is it so hard to understand that people recognize the government has included religious acceptance and even condoned religion, without specifying which -- since the first President wrote his farewell address.

"In God We Trust" also comes to mind.

There's a great deal of continuity and it's easy to understand. Why is it so hard to understand indeed.

Click to expand...

If it wasn't christian endorsement, why are you mad?

heymikey80 said:

Because this isn't the government. This is a school lunchroom.

Click to expand...

Public schools are part of the government. The lunchroom is part of the school. Easy enough to understand.

Autumnleaf said:

Americans kids seemed to do better in school and on standardized world wide tests back when God was in the class room. Jus sayin.

Click to expand...

Thats because people didn't know squat back then. Back when teaching evolution was considered illegal, I wouldn't base merit off a past with such a bad track record.

Good thing they removed it.

If the kid had been Islamic, and written it, do you think it would ever have even been put up? No, it wouldn't. So why should a Christian kid's prayers be publically displayed when a Muslim's would be shunned?

Wow, I can't believe we're actually still going on about how this is unfair to christians constitutionally.

Apparently some of here are smarter than the judge that made the decision to take it down.

If you can't understand something sooooooo elementary, then no wonder you think there's a god... so you can pray for brain power.

I hear some christians say "yes, well, she's right, it is unconstitutional." I'm like 'thank you.'

I bet the friggn judge and/or governor are christian and I don't hear them displaying their stupidity. (But i again, idk if they are or not just sayin).

heymikey80 said:

Because this isn't the government. This is a school lunchroom.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of the point. A lunchroom run by the government.

heymikey80 said:

What, you think the government represents a burger patty on a bun?

Click to expand...

I don't even know what this bizarre comment is supposed to mean.

heymikey80 said:

Why is it so hard to understand that people recognize the government has included religious acceptance and even condoned religion, without specifying which -- since the first President wrote his farewell address.

Click to expand...

Not hard, too bad that isn't anything like what happened here.

heymikey80 said:

"In God We Trust" also comes to mind.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you are having random brain flashes. Would you like to make a point along with it?

heymikey80 said:

There's a great deal of continuity and it's easy to understand. Why is it so hard to understand indeed.

Click to expand...

It really isn't: government (which yes, does include school lunchrooms!) establishment of religion is illegal.

heymikey80 said:

She's not standing up for herself; she's standing up against her schoolmates.

Click to expand...

No, she's standing up for herself.

That she would make a court case of it constitutes "persecution" of the plainest sort.

Click to expand...

That she won the court case shows it does not.

Much like the atheist Dan Savage conducts a cyberbullying campaign against Rick Santorum.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, poor Santorum is being bullied to stop his bullying of gays and secularists. Perhaps you should just start your own thread on how the anti-bully is bullying your bully.

If that's what you're looking for, don't bother to attempt the argument. It's bullying your view against a religious one.

Click to expand...

Are you being threatened and intimidated by a logical argument? Is that your new meme, to cry, "Bully" whenever anyone stands up to bullying?

heymikey80 said:

Because this isn't the government. This is a school lunchroom.

What, you think the government represents a burger patty on a bun?

Click to expand...

"Public school may refer to:
State school in Australia, Canada, Scotland, and the United States, a school funded with tax revenue and administered by a government or governmental agency"
Public school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a private school; it is a public school.

AtheistVet said:

If it wasn't christian endorsement, why are you mad?

Click to expand...

Exactly. I see these people as little better than the authors of the Wedge document. They know it's about Christianity, but pretend it's not so they can try and slip it in under the radar. You guys aren't fooling anyone.

heymikey80 said:

My nephews were instructed not to call parties a "Christmas party" when they were in school.

Students in youth group reported that some teachers declared that there would be no religious discussions in their class.

Click to expand...

So what? By your arguments that's just a teacher or other school official exercising their right to freely express their religious views. Nothing wrong with that, right? That's what you've been saying all along.

But it looks like you're upset because authority figures are indoctrinating your nephews with religious ideas your family doesn't agree with. Now you understand why the establishment clause prevents government officials from forcing their religious view on a captive audience like this. Only the government is smart enough to apply this across the board rather than just in cases where it makes you feel icky because someone disagrees with your faith.