Explain the prayer in schools thing to me

[justgin]

So let's say you don't believe in Krishna. If you say 'That Krishna dude is dumb' does that imply you hate Hindus?

I don't believe in krishna. Jesus commanded us to "love one another" AND to "love our enemies", so, no i don't hate hindus. A person who only follows himself (or other religions) has no such commandments and so he loves and hates as he sees fit. I don't understand why this is hard to see. What are you getting at?

[phaedrus]

I don't believe in krishna. Jesus commanded us to "love one another" AND to "love our enemies", so, no i don't hate hindus. A person who only follows himself (or other religions) has no such commandments and so he loves and hates as he sees fit. I don't understand why this is hard to see. What are you getting at?

I'm just curious about this perception you have Christians are especially hated. Lots of religions and for that matter many atheists treat others the way they would like to be treated. My point was that saying something you consider blasphemous about your Jesus does not necessarily imply hatred of Christians in a similar way to your not hating Hindus despite not believing in Krishna. I'm suggesting it's possible you're seeing hatred where at least on occasions there isn't any.

[Teallaura]

Um, Phae, you're confusing disagreement with blasphemy. Even if we grant the 'dumb' comment as blasphemous, it's so mild that it's pretty obviously not what JG is getting at. I think she is referring to the hardcore blasphemy we see so often. That kind of display is pretty obviously directed both at the Lord and at upsetting His followers - something you generally don't see people do unless they have negative feelings for the followers as well.

I doubt madonna was trying to upset Jesus with that video of hers. Artists that choose hideous, filthy modes to display religious images aren't trying to get God mad as much as infuriating Christians - hateful to say the least.

[Seasanctuary]

You're also conflating - exposure to public prayer is indoctrination? Not even close - and it really is silly to equate the two. [...] If you genuinely support religious freedom then you should also support religious expression in the public sector - because banning public expression is an anathema to freedom of religion and most other freedoms as well.

It sounds like you're the one conflating private expression of religion in public view with government agents acting in a government role expressing religion. I could see how you would make the mistake, since public/private is a dichotomy which can be used to refer both to visibility and government.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that religion must be kept out of public visibility, but rather that it must be kept out of public governance. I agree that keeping everyone from making publicly visible expressions of religion is against religious freedom. I support your right to go preach on the corner, but not acting as a public school teacher.

Knock yourself out. These guys* specialize in such cases.

Weblinks are nice for additional information. I'm asking for examples in this thread or at least a weblink to a specific issue.

So far, I've only heard of a couple individual government agents making a mistake and being corrected. If this is such a big deal, it shouldn't be so hard to point out what the problem is supposed to be.

[Carrikature]

And that makes over-correction right? And if so how?

Did I say that?

Let's not forget Jesus said this would happen (if the world hates you, know it hated Me first...) - so it's expected but that doesn't make it fair.

I really don't understand why you mention this verse. Over-correction should be expected because of the stupidity of Christians. Over-correction would be expected as a result of the stupidity of any particular stance, religious or otherwise. This has nothing to do with being hated because we're Christians.

[LostSheep]

This has nothing to do with being hated because we're Christians.

I think this is actually incorrect. Culture war attacks on Christians frequently ARE malicious. It should be frequently apparent that the secular world hates (or at least dislikes) us because they regard us as ignorant and goody-twoshoes. So overcorrection is not only due to stupidity, but from anger directed toward us by people who feel offended by Christians.

[Carrikature]

I think this is actually incorrect. Culture war attacks on Christians frequently ARE malicious. It should be frequently apparent that the secular world hates (or at least dislikes) us because they regard us as ignorant and goody-twoshoes. So overcorrection is not only due to stupidity, but from anger directed toward us by people who feel offended by Christians.

Yes, it's done by people who are offended by Christians. My point was that the bolded section is the reason for this. They dislike us because of the actions of other Christians. We can be hated because we believe in God or we can be hated because we ignorantly condemn others and act like we're better than them. The first is what JG's verse is about. The second is our own fault. I see much more of the second than the first. Of course, the two can hand-in-hand pretty well, so likely a mix exists.

Mostly, I just think a lot of people are over-sensitive.

[justgin]

Did I say that?

(that over-correction is right)


You implied that by saying : "with a religion that specifically decries certain acts that have become societal norm, the knee-jerk reaction by the public is to be expected. The countless examples of sheer ignorance on the part of Christians has only added fuel to the fire."

Sure, a knee-jerk reaction is to be expected. I understand and agree with you there. But what i'm saying is this: Christianity used to be tolerated everywhere much more readily in the past than it is now. Things were a lot different in the 60's, 70's and 80's than they are now. You don't remember this because you weren't born yet. Because Christianity used to be tolerated as much as it was - even so far as our country being known as a Christian nation, there has been an over-correction of non-toleration specificially toward Christianity (ie: fighting prayer in schools, not allowing Christian teachers to pray in classrooms yet mandating they teach evolution.) The unspoken notion is that other religions deserve an overdose of toleration in order to balance out the amount that Christianity once had, coupled with non-tolerance of Christianity, rather than adopting a tolerance of all religions, and public expression of it, equally. That's what i mean when i talk about over-correction. A similar thing has happened in regards to homosexuals. They used to be shunned, denigrated, and kicked to the curb. Now they are embraced whole-heartedly, as if approving of their lifestyle. That's an over-correction. I didn't want gays beaten and killed, but i also don't want their lifestyle accepted as normal. It's not fair to anyone, including them. How can they turn to God and get healed of their affliction if we don't point out that it is wrong? This is just an example. I don't intend for this thread to become about toleration of homosexuality when it was originally about prayer in schools.

I really don't understand why you mention this verse. Over-correction should be expected because of the stupidity of Christians. Over-correction would be expected as a result of the stupidity of any particular stance, religious or otherwise. This has nothing to do with being hated because we're Christians.

I interpret the present day intolerance of Christianity in the country as hatred - it's on the same continuum. Jesus is not one of those guys you can feel lukewarm about. You either love Him or you hate Him. People naturally will feel the same about His followers as they do about Him.

I don't understand what you meant in your statement about the stupidity of Christians related to my statement about over-correction.

[Teallaura]

It sounds like you're the one conflating private expression of religion in public view with government agents acting in a government role expressing religion. I could see how you would make the mistake, since public/private is a dichotomy which can be used to refer both to visibility and government.

No, I was going by the topic. Government is part of the 'public' arena - it's still conflation. Governmental participation is still not establishment - not as intended in the Constitution and not in any rational analysis.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that religion must be kept out of public visibility, but rather that it must be kept out of public governance. I agree that keeping everyone from making publicly visible expressions of religion is against religious freedom. I support your right to go preach on the corner,...

Fair enough.

...but not acting as a public school teacher.

Why? Why don't teachers have the right to pray in schools? You are now mistaking public employees for the US Congress - there's still no 'establishment' here. If (as in my area of the country) the majority wants prayer in schools, why should a minority deny them the right?

Weblinks are nice for additional information. I'm asking for examples in this thread or at least a weblink to a specific issue.

So far, I've only heard of a couple individual government agents making a mistake and being corrected.
...

This is disingenuous. You were given examples and then asked for more - you can do your own research now. The point is made - now come up with a better counter than 'you didn't give enough examples'. 'A couple individual governments' making mistakes doesn't result in entire law groups specializing in such cases.

If this is such a big deal, it shouldn't be so hard to point out what the problem is supposed to be.

Really, Sea, you don't usually whine like that. You've been given examples and links to more (the mere existence of the law groups is also evidence, as previously observed). Either counter the point with something better or just concede that there is a problem and try debating the scale - which really sounds like where you are going anyway.

[rogue06]

(ie: fighting prayer in schools, not allowing Christian teachers to pray in classrooms yet mandating they teach evolution.)

I'd argue that you're doing a thorough job of mixing apples and oranges here, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Carrikature]

(that over-correction is right)

I didn't say over-correction was right, I said it was to be expected.

Things were a lot different in the 60's, 70's and 80's than they are now. You don't remember this because you weren't born yet. Because Christianity used to be tolerated as much as it was - even so far as our country being known as a Christian nation, there has been an over-correction of non-toleration specificially toward Christianity (ie: fighting prayer in schools, not allowing Christian teachers to pray in classrooms yet mandating they teach evolution.)

Just because I wasn't there doesn't mean I'm unaware of such things. Nor does the former tolerance of Christianity have anything to do with those former policies being right.

The unspoken notion is that other religions deserve an overdose of toleration in order to balance out the amount that Christianity once had, coupled with non-tolerance of Christianity, rather than adopting a tolerance of all religions, and public expression of it, equally.

This is your interpretation of the notion, not one that necessarily exists. This is where I bring up being overly-sensitive. You look at how things once were and wish for those days to return without consideration of whether or not everyone agrees that was the proper way to do things. I, for one, do not think it was the proper way.

That's what i mean when i talk about over-correction. A similar thing has happened in regards to homosexuals. They used to be shunned, denigrated, and kicked to the curb. Now they are embraced whole-heartedly, as if approving of their lifestyle. That's an over-correction. I didn't want gays beaten and killed, but i also don't want their lifestyle accepted as normal. It's not fair to anyone, including them. How can they turn to God and get healed of their affliction if we don't point out that it is wrong? This is just an example. I don't intend for this thread to become about toleration of homosexuality when it was originally about prayer in schools.

I rest my case regarding the ignorance of Christians. "It's just a disease, and you can be healed from it." No wonder we are rejected.

I interpret the present day intolerance of Christianity in the country as hatred - it's on the same continuum. Jesus is not one of those guys you can feel lukewarm about. You either love Him or you hate Him. People naturally will feel the same about His followers as they do about Him.

Again, this is my point about being overly-sensitive. How someone feels about Jesus doesn't necessarily enter the equation here.

I don't understand what you meant in your statement about the stupidity of Christians related to my statement about over-correction.

My grandmother has told me that country music gives you depression. That statement is based in her ignorance and nothing else. She makes similar statements (ignorance-based) fairly often. She's also a Christian. Many people make statements out of ignorance. The difference is that when you have a large majority making the same statement, people are going to start avoiding that majority. It is going to be seen as majority=ignorance. That doesn't make the perception right, but it IS going to happen. This, in my opinion, is what you are seeing with regards to the current 'intolerance' of Christianity. This is not a "I hate God so abolish Christianity" movement. This is a "Christians are ignorant bigots so their influence should be minimized" movement.

Why? Why don't teachers have the right to pray in schools? You are now mistaking public employees for the US Congress - there's still no 'establishment' here.

Where does the difference lie? When an employee is on the clock, he is representing the company he works for. Agreeing with all of the policies or not is irrelevant, that employee should still be publicly supporting the company's standards. This is no less true of a public employee than it is a private one.

[Teallaura]

I'd argue that you're doing a thorough job of mixing apples and oranges here, but that's a topic for another thread.

Nope, she's looking at both as matters of conscience. The problem is trying to divorce secular and sectarian based on the belief proper - and if you apply the rules fairly, it can't be done. Reason 678 why the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied to the classroom - one man's science is another man's religion and the Constitution doesn't distinguish them.

[Teallaura]

...
Where does the difference lie? When an employee is on the clock, he is representing the company he works for. Agreeing with all of the policies or not is irrelevant, that employee should still be publicly supporting the company's standards. This is no less true of a public employee than it is a private one.

Representation isn't establishment - apple, meet orange. You're arguing from a completely different POV - one that even if I grant merit doesn't tell us anything about the need for Constitutional mandate in the classroom. Vouchers would solve the 'problem', even if I granted the existence (which I might in a limited sense). The Constitution doesn't say 'public employees may not represent a religion' - it says Congress may not establish one. The two things are light years apart. Letting a teacher pray in class is a far cry from forcing everyone to worship the same God. The conflation of expression with establishment is simply not rational - nor a good idea. There are a lot of cases where it's better to let the marketplace of ideas take care of itself rather than have the judiciary define it - this is one.

[rogue06]

Nope, she's looking at both as matters of conscience. The problem is trying to divorce secular and sectarian based on the belief proper - and if you apply the rules fairly, it can't be done. Reason 678 why the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied to the classroom - one man's science is another man's religion and the Constitution doesn't distinguish them.

Evolution is not a religion but an explanation for how life changes and adapts over time. Rumor has it that there are even some Christians who have no trouble accepting that evolution has taken place and is even continuing to do so.

Evolution is a mechanism. A process. It is in fact completely neutral to religion* as are other natural mechanisms and processes.

Further, I think your argument opens the door wide to assertions that nothing can be taught because you can't divorce the sectarian from the secuar - if you apply the rules fairly.

Even math.

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of hell.”

--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

It can also be translated as “Therefore, a good Christian should beware that mathematicians, and any others who prophesy impiously... may be entangled in the companionship of demons.” And don't get me started on "sacred geometry."

Yup, nothing more than a religion

Math Atheist.jpg

Now that was almost entirely tongue in cheek but I think I could make a pretty good case for equal treatment for similar views concerning gravity, meteorology and physics in general. And everything comes screeching to a halt.

Well, so much for "a topic for another thread" I suggest if we want to continue that we do just that although it's justgin's thread and her call.






* Not saying that many haven't used it to both support various religious positions and interpretations as well as been used by others to attack religion or specific interpretations. Both are likely equally mistaken views and not relevant as to whether evolution happens.

[Teallaura]

Evolution is not a religion but an explanation for how life changes and adapts over time. Rumor has it that there are even some Christians who have no trouble accepting that evolution has taken place and is even continuing to do so.

Evolution is a mechanism. A process. It is in fact completely neutral to religion* as are other natural mechanisms and processes.

Further, I think your argument opens the door wide to assertions that nothing can be taught because you can't divorce the sectarian from the secuar - if you apply the rules fairly.

Even math.

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of hell.”

--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

It can also be translated as “Therefore, a good Christian should beware that mathematicians, and any others who prophesy impiously... may be entangled in the companionship of demons.” And don't get me started on "sacred geometry."

Yup, nothing more than a religion

Math Atheist.jpg

Now that was almost entirely tongue in cheek but I think I could make a pretty good case for equal treatment for similar views concerning gravity, meteorology and physics in general. And everything comes screeching to a halt.

Well, so much for "a topic for another thread" I suggest if we want to continue that we do just that although it's justgin's thread and her call.






* Not saying that many haven't used it to both support various religious positions and interpretations as well as been used by others to attack religion or specific interpretations. Both are likely equally mistaken views and not relevant as to whether evolution happens.

Sigh, you've missed the point, Rogue. You believe science isn't a religion - but that only holds ground so long as it isn't a religion to anyone - and it clearly is a religion to some. That's all I need for the Constitutional argument, Rogue. Your argument above is irrelevant to JG's - and mine. Makes zero difference that not everyone regards science as a religion; it doesn't even matter if you are correct - it only matters that some legitimately do regard science as their religion and/or that science can legitimately conflict with religious beliefs. Truth of belief ISN'T a constitutional issue. The Constitution treats 'religion' as hands off. The exceptions where the state's interest is greater than the Free Expression clause are extremely limited - think snake handling. If we apply the law fairly, as written, then JG's point stands.