Atheist student harassed for asking school obey state laws.

Oh but our prayers sound like shit in English...

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@Usht. So you're making an argument from emotion then?

edited 21st May '11 11:56:57 PM by Counterclock

Nah, I'm saying that twenty seconds of prayer a few mentions of God before the ceremony begins isn't going to scar anyone. And this still reinforces my argument that if you wanted atheistic representation or whatever, it'd only take another ten to forty seconds.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Unless you're a Buddha I honestly think everyone in this thread is making arguments based on emotion. Just different ones directed towards different ideals.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That's mighty prideful of the buddhist to say.

Is pride technically an emotion?

edited 22nd May '11 12:04:16 AM by Counterclock

Pride is a series of emotions yes. I think that my own arguments are almost wholly based on emotion too. I'm an idiot. An unwise idiot whose ideals are largely based on emotion.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That is quite possible, especially explicitly stating that it only directed at christians and on noone else.

Although I wonder if such disclaimer is enough to maintain the separation of church and state. It might be claimed that it is enough, but there might be arguments against it. I am not an expert on the law.

Still, I do think that this disclaimer was made due to this guy's protests, and that it is a good think that it was added.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

If we can get away with both sides being happy with a disclaimer, that'd be great, to be honest. However, as the Atheist news site and the Christian harassers demonstrate, there's no way to end a problem like this on neutrality of any sort without making people from both sides angry.

EDIT: Then again, ending it in favor of either side makes for more angry people, so meh.

edited 22nd May '11 12:21:16 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

So in the end people are mad anyway. THE END.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

The problem here isn't whether or not it'll "scar" anyone, or how polite the prayer is, or anything. The problem is that the prayer doesn't need to and shouldn't be there, the atheist was correct to just request it not be, and the community was dickish for their reaction and then including it anyway.

Especially since, going by the article, the atheist kid wasn't dickish to begin with. All he asked was that the prayer not be included. He didn't ask the Christians not to say anything at all about God, didn't ask them to do or say anything that was against their beliefs.

Because no, sorry, neither did he step on their beliefs. I used to be Catholic, there is absolutely no edict in the Bible that says you have to say prayers before and after every or any single non-religious event of the day, only during religious ceremonies and masses. Which this isn't.

So, essentially, the kid made a reasonable request that wouldn't have hurt anyone or anything and the community acted like asses about filling it.

After all, if the prayer was so mild and non-consequential to the ceremony, I could easily point out that it wouldn't have scarred the Christians to leave it out, and then everyone would be on equal footing. ;)

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

A few problems I have with your post:

1. Going by the article isn't a good idea in this case, beyond giving a rudimentary image of what's going on, it just simply goes out of its way to bash Christians and is on a militant atheist site. This means we really have no clue about what the kid was like since he is going to be portrayed as sympathetic anyway.
2. Just because things aren't included in the holy scriptures of a particular religion doesn't mean that the followers can or can not do it. That being said, since this is a community heavily populated with Christians, it makes sense that they supplement a large chunk of their lives with things related to their faith.
3. The whole "Go with the group" mentality that I believe you showed dismay at earlier in the topic (Or was it someone else?) was because people thought one should just go with the group and when scarring is involved, no, you shouldn't, when it's a minor inconvenience, then aren't you really petty to inconvenience everyone else for your own sake?

edited 22nd May '11 4:02:20 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I was going by just part with the statement where the kid was said to have e-mailed the superintendent asking for the prayer to not be said, with no other demands. That may or may not have actually been the case, but if it is the case, then the kid did not ask for anything that would harm the Christians in any way.

It really doesn't matter. It will not hurt the Christians to go without overt prayer for a time (especially since nobody was saying they couldn't just pray in private), nor is it in any way stepping on their beliefs to ask them to do so.

I mean, it's not even so much as saying that the Christians have to hide being Christian. Just that they not hold an official prayer in a non-religious ceremony. How is that "stepping on their beliefs"? How is that a horrible, unreasonable demand?

Heck, my dad was a very devout Christian, but he was voluntarily very private about it (mostly because he was shy). All he was ever seen doing "publically" was saying grace, sitting in our living room reading the Bible semi-regularly, and going to Christmas and Easter mass. You don't have to be openly and loudly Christian every single moment of the day to be devout.

And, people have already addressed the "minor inconvenience" fallacy earlier in the thread. Especially since it's actually more than an inconvenience to be forced to pretend to go along with something you don't believe in or risk ostracization. If I was in a public situation that was supposed to be non-religious, but it was made very clear that being Christian was the "normal" thing to be by official formal prayer I was socially expected to engage in, it would be very uncomfortable.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

To put it simply, the problem is the privilege.

You'd be surprised how often public prayer verges into the offensive. It was obviously pulled back in this case, but it happens quite often in my experience. Generally the offensiveness usually takes the form of being on the one path or something of that nature.

However, even if it is all sunshine and roses, it's still wrong. Why? Because the problem is the privilege. The same privilege that thinks that it's appropriate to throw private religious beliefs into a public event thinks that it's appropriate to try and enforce arbitrary "moral" codes on everybody. It's also the same privilege that thinks that anybody not on the same path as them is a horrible terrible no-good person who deserves to be changed forcibly.

That's the big problem, is that religious privilege is a dangerous weapon in our society, and my experience is that even well meaning religious (and even non-religious) individuals LIKE the privilege and look to maintain and even extend it.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

To put it another way, it's not entirely about the one singular prayer at one particular event.

It's about how this kind of thing happens all over the place, at these kinds of events, with religion getting an option nobody else really does.

Although I wonder if such disclaimer is enough to maintain the separation of church and state. It might be claimed that it is enough, but there might be arguments against it. I am not an expert on the law.

It isn't. Legally a school cannot endorse a religion in any way; a prayer is an endorsement whether or not you say only Christians have to pray. "Moderate Christanity" is still a religion, and acknowledging that there are other kinds of people out there and you don't hate them is nice but it doesn't make your prayer not a prayer.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I'm coming late to this thread, but I'd like to make a point about the "mindlessly obeying the law just because it is the law" / "reporting people smoking pot" comparisons.

IMO, they are not at all comparable.

Those are about enforcing arbitrary laws on people who are minding their own business.

The law in question here, though (the US Constitution) is the opposite - it is about ensuring that people are not compelled to conform to a particular belief.

(If a pot analogy is at all valid, it would not be the kid reporting fellow students for smoking, it would be him complaining about the school giving a speech on why pot is great and expecting all the students to light up).

IMO, the very fact that there has been such a level of hatred and ostracism directed at the student (and the fact that so many people are saying "it's the Deep South - what do you expect would happen) just goes to show that this is something that needs fighting.

To add my voice to the choir:

The default for a non-religious event is that there is no religious content.

Yes, so don't add unnecessary things where by default there are none.

It's not as if someone went to a sacred hall of school event programs and demanded that they remove an essential item from the list; instead, someone compared the proposed program to the restrictions that the law and common human decency mandate, found a bit that the proposed program violated and let the people in charge know that this extra bit that they needlessly added was not cool, followed by a request to return to the norm. Not the "but it's always been like this!" norm, but the one that is most obvious and logical and least offensive to everyone; that is to say, the one with no added bits.

When you have a basic formula for how an event - say, a hockey game - goes, you're free to add to that whatever you like, as long as you're not excluding or inconveniencing anyone. So, for the hockey game example, adding a figure skating performance to the breaks between periods is OK, but having the referees recite prayers before the game is not.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

...Best, that wasn't the best example. It's the right of the referees to pray if they want. It's not bothering anyone else.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

No, I meant having the referees lead a moment of prayer over the speakers, requiring everyone in the audience to shut up for the duration or join in, before the game.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

School hockey, or professional hockey?

Are you suggesting that it matters?

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

You didn't know it does?

Admittedly, I have never heard a prayer held at any Hockey game, then again, I've been to exactly one Hockey game in my entire life, and I didn't show up at the beginning, but I have heard prayers at other sporting events.

Prayers at what now? I picked a sporting event for the exact purpose of having an example of an event where no one would ever suggest a prayer.

Wow.

Well, anyway, there shouldn't be such prayer things in a sport event. It's not religious, so don't attach it in there. Or if you do, name the event "ice hockey and religion" or something, and don't ever make it a school event 'cause school or other public institutions are not supposed to promote any religion.

So if there's a school hockey game, no, you're not supposed to have prayer in there. That'd be like having someone from the Communist party hold a speech before the game and telling the students that they can't come to the game unless they're willing to listen to the Commie.

edited 22nd May '11 4:44:41 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Well, they hold prayers at a lot of private sporting events here.

Sometimes they even show it on TV!

Can't they just pray on their way to the game? Or before the actual thing? Or when they're driving to the game? Or pray while lining up to get in?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."