From Peter N.
What is going on with the Democrats? A couple of days ago Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced a public school prayer amendment to the US Constitution, his eighth such attempt during his too long career in the U.S. Senate. Now we learn that Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Reid (D-NV) have invited a staunch Republican evangelist to teach the Democrats how to appeal to evangelists. Read Amy Sullivan’s piece in the Washington Monthly titled “When would Jesus Bolt”. Are the Democrats going over to the dark side of the force or are the evangelists seeing the light about the immorality of the pro-business Republican “God’s Only Party.”
Our Bill of Rights was constructed to prevent “the tyranny of the majority” to prevail over a minority.
Uh oh…
Another Democrat heading in the wrong direction…
http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/2856606.html
This is going to upset the “Pro-choice” crowd.
Hardly, as this doesn’t have anything to do w/ abortion. It’s going to upset people with any kind of common sense, or rational thought though.
HeatheNZ:
I?m not sure I understand your question. If you?re asking if I think the majority should have the right to ?enforce its ideas? on the minority, then the answer is yes?because that?s how propositional balloting is supposed to work?that?s what a democracy is.
jcc, thanks for the question. I am completely out of time, but two quick thoughts: ignoring the needs and ideas of the minority is how insurgencies work. While an extreme example and not quite that clear cut, the struggle between Sunni’s and Shia’s in Iraq represents what can happen when the majority and minority can’t play nice. I believe that an effective majority is one that does unto others as they would have others do to them… restrain themselves and attempt to see the big picture.
In addition, a majority is not right simply because it is the majority. Did the majority of Nazis believe that Jews should be killed? The Jews were the minority in this case, but the Nazi party was initially elected.
I’m not saying you think those things, but I think there is a baseline of freedom and ideas that democracy represents, but I think there is an obligation on those in power to work for the good of all and protect the rights of all, not just the majority.
I have no problem with atheists asking us not to pray at public events. I don’t think we should have religious symbols on public lands. Why should christians feel entitled to do so? Just because we’re the majority? I would say no. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I would agree that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancies and STSD’s. But if it is to be presented as the preferred method to middle and high school students, I would like disclosure on just “who” is stating that preference.
Ironically, it is most effective for both married and unmarried people. Will it be taught that abstinence is preferred in a marriage unless the couple is explicitly attempting to conceive? And even then, why take any chances on STD’s? Instead of having sex the old fashioned way, those wanting to conceive should practice artificial insemination.
Otherwise, this is just a thinly veiled cover for “sex without marriage is sinful.”
The practical solution is to present abstinence as a valid method of a “wellness” program, alongside the other available options for birth control and disease prevention.
What about gay sex? Since we can’t marry anywhere in the USA except MA this legislation also sends the message that gay sex is always wrong. Period.
Some days I wonder why I don’t go back to the UK where my marriage, when I’m ready to marry, would be legal and supported. Land of the Free my arse.
Alex.
phreedm
Your comments to Alex:
Alex is a gay atheist.
Do you really need someone to fill in the blanks for you?
I can see where you would find gray areas on the matter of discrimination against atheists.
But against gays? Isn’t the discrimination against them obvious?
I agree that objection to this scenario is a little over-sensitive when taken as a case unto itself. After all, one has the option of changing the channel. But what really is the point of designating the weather outlook as church service
oriented? Why not just say the “Sunday morning forecast is…”
Does the station give a Saturday synogogue forecast? Or a pagan equinox forecast?
This combined with the myriad of God-nods in the news only serves the purpose of giving Christians preferential treatment and sending the message to others that they are not worth -or as worth- mentioning.
The secular method is not to push the idea that there is no god, but to say that no one idea has more value than any other.
The point is, if a child does this, it should be in response to an assignment in which every child has the opportunity to stand and say his/her own piece without censure.
If this is a spontaneous outburst, then it is disruption and does not belong in the classroom. And if the child feels a need to continue this behavior, then let him/her leave the classroom to expound upon beliefs, just as the Muslim child leaves to do the daily required prayers.
karen:
So, are you saying that referencing one?s faith in casual conversation while on government property is, or should be, verboten?
jcc
No. But standing and making statements to the class, if not related to the subject material, yes.
karen:
So, for anyone who believes that virtually all subject material can ultimately be articulated in a reasoned way that inescapably includes the mention of God, then those persons should not be allowed to speak?
jcc
If you are saying that it should be okay for a student to say “2+2=4, Praise Jesus!” then, no, that is not necessary or allowed.
If you mean something else, please explain further.
karen:
No, I think you answered my question. You make it pretty clear that you cannot tolerate anyone making reference to his/her faith while on public property. From my perspective, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you regard the First Amendment to only apply to atheists.
JCC,
I guess it might make sense for me to take a second to more fully explain some of my thoughts. I make a distinction between what’s enforcable by law and what’s appropriate.
What’s enforcable by law: I don’t think we should have laws that reflect a particular religious belief. You shall not murder, you shall not steal, do not bear false witness are not exclusively in the domain of christianity. The other commandments aren’t enforced (perhaps adultery, but I think that’s a little questionable). Laws are based on social contracts that we have so that we can coexist. I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry legally (actually, even religiously, but that’s my deal). As Alex said, there’s no secular reason why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Two consenting adults should have the freedom to marry. If we bandy about with a religious basis for what legally enforcable, what seperates us from those who use sharia law? If you believe we should have laws based on religious ideas, then it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you regard the Taliban as being correct in forcing their women to wear burkas and not give them education.
What’s appropriate: this is more the gray area. Should a student be allowed to say they believe in god in a public school? I think it depends on the context. If a teacher asks all the children what they believe and why, then sure, talk all you want. If a teacher favors christian kids and singles out the minority atheist kids, that’s wrong. On the flip side, if a science teacher favors atheist kids, that’s wrong. Even there, it’s favoratism that’s wrong, not religious belief or lack therof. I went a Christian school and my biology teacher played favorites all the time. Man, I didn’t like her.
It’s not a question of first amendment in my mind. It’s a question of what’s appropriate, what’s kind. JCC, I think there’s a very high bar set for kindness and love set by our religious beliefs. What other people do is their business, but our business is to treat others as we would have them treat us.
jcc:
A-HEM!
School property is most definitely NOT public property.
From Wikipedia:
“public property:
Public property is land which is owned by a government, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals or corporations. In many republican democracies, “public property” is said to be owned by the people as a commons. (In other types of state, such property is said to be owned by the “state” or the “crown”.)
Most public property is accessible to the general public, such as zoos, libraries, and parks; some is reserved for restricted use, such as military bases and research laboratories.”
Whereas, under the entry on American Schools:
“Public school systems are supported by a combination of local, state, and federal government funding.”
I cannot speak for Karen, but it’s decidedly 1 thing for a student to pray over their lunch (which they can do), & another thing entirely for assemblies to be led in prayer.
BIG difference.
jcc
Not true in either charge.
It would be equally inappropriate for another student to say “2+2=4, and I don’t believe in god!”
The second part of the statement is not relevant to the lesson and serves to distract from it.
If, between classes, the two students have a conversation about their beliefs in the hallway, that is perfectly acceptable.
If either student makes a belief statement over the school intercom, but only one view is permitted, that is not acceptable. The floor should be opened for anyone of any belief to speak. At some point in the day, there might be some time found to actually teach that 2=2+4.
If any school personnel attaches their personal beliefs to the school agenda, then disseminates those beliefs (of any variety) publicly in dealing with the students, that person should be reprimanded.
Of course, under the first amendment, anyone is free to say anything (except maybe 2+2=4, Fire! Fire! Fire!-if there really is no fire). But in public schools there are rules about appropriate speech, and class disruption.
Would you support spontaneous declarations of atheism, agnosticism, devil worship, paganism, wicca, and all other flavors of religion during class time? Or is it only OK for Christians to engage in this behavior? And how would these declarations add anything to the lesson?
jcc
I hope you are stillout there reading, if not commenting. I’d hate to have you leave int he middle of a misunderstanding.