http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/NEWS/607260437/1001This article is about something that seems innocuous, but heads strongly in the wrong direction. Coaches are now allowed to participate in student-led prayer.In defense, they cite the coach’s constitutional rights, the fact that the prayer is non-sectarian, and that the effort is “secular in purpose”. BUT nobody was saying the coach couldn’t pray, and come on, what exactly is a secular prayer anyway? I’ll tell you: It’s a lie.Let’s get something straight: There is no such thing as organized high-school prayer that is not coercive. If students lead it, some may argue that the coercion is worse due to the peer pressure (the exact intent). There is also no such thing as organizing prayer for a secular reason. The only reason for prayer is to subjugate the students and push the mythology. Yes, the coach has the constitutional right to pray, but the students have the rights to play football without having religion (specifically Chrtistianity) pushed on them by their own coach. Sorry coach, but your own religion says you should pray in private (read Matthew), and that your god can hear your prayers even if you don’t make it obvious that you are praying. Your rights are just fine.If coaches can participate, then so can teachers, principals, and the rest of the staff. The next step is the return to forced prayer. This is the whole purpose, and we’re going to see it happen very soon.
Karen,
Here is the latest version of Webster (2001) that I have regarding the definition of “religion”.
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs”.
I find this interesting when compared to my old Webster’s of the 60’s where the first definition is this:
“the service and worship of God or the supernatural.”
These are quite strikingly different first meanings of the word, wouldn’t you agree? Even in the 2001 version it is inclusive of all worldviews that try to explain reality which would, it seem, include such views as naturalism, atheism, existenialism, etc. I admit, it still recognizes the superhuman in its 2001 version, but does not exclude all the other worldviews.
My understanding is that the 2006 edition has even more inclusive wording as I paraphrased before, but do not have access to that update at the moment. I will continue to try and find it.
Tim:
Are you our old sparring buddy from the past?
Anyways:
I’d have to say it’s far from arbitrary – keep religion out of the schools.
Prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the federales didn’t enforce the BOR via the states, but rather left them to their own devices. So ‘philosophic consistency’ changes on a pragmatic basis.
I think this sums it up quite nicely:
“In Ohio v. Whisner, 47 Ohio St.2d 181, 351 N.E.2d 750 (1976), the Ohio Supreme Court exempted Christian schools from certification and accreditation requirements. “…It has long been recognized that the right of a parent to guide the education, including the religious education, of his or her children is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (47 Ohio St.2d at 214.) The Court also exempted them under the Free Exercise Clause since the state did not justify its interest in enforcing the extensive regulations. (See 1979 Ohio Attorney General Opinion 79-056.)” http://home.woh.rr.com/ccorwin/ndchea/ohio.htm
In short – private school, no problem. Public school? Fergetaboutit.
Ah, yes…true judicial activism at its finest (shamelessly copped from spanders).
Tim,
That definition does seem a bit too broad. I do find the term “superhuman agency” a bit odd. Supernatural probably is a better word.
Would a Superman fan club be a religion? More importantly would they kill the fans of other superheros because only one hero can be truly “super”… ?
reluctant,
No, this is my first time here.
My reference regarding separation was not Church intrusion into schooling, but the original state intrusion into schooling which, to my understanding, was typically and originally an activity and domain of the church. My point is the inconsistency of separation impementation and whether or not it goes both directions. In other words, is it a violation when the state sticks its nose, so to speak, in church business, as it seems to have done historically. This led to my conclusion that it seems a bit arbitrary, how and when the separation priciples apply.
smartypants,
this isn’t my definition, it’s webster’s. Would you agree that “religion” should include all worldviews that attempt to explain existence? This would include supernatural as well as natural viepoints, if I may use those terms. If so, why so and if not, why not?
Heathen, ***abusive content deleted without apology (HZ)****
Karen, you never ansewred my question. What does the establishment clause have to do with allowing prayers in school?
Tim
Well, the world (and I hope the way the world thinks) is strikingly different now compared to 1960.
I would not say this definition includes atheism, as atheism does not concern itself with
nor does it have a moral code. It concerns itself only with the evidence of the
“superhuman agency or agencies,” of which it finds there are none.
Still, an interesting definition. Kind of new-ageish. I’d half expect to see pictures of crystals aound it in the dictionary.
Tim,
It appears, from what you have written here, is that the Webster dictionary is trying to be more inclusive in its definition of religion; and away from its more judeo-christian sounding definition it used previously. I don’t take that as being so inclusive as to include atheism. Out of curiosity though, I’m wondering if Webster is improving on its definition of atheism as it has with religion. Would you mind posting it Tim?
Excellent question, Tommy_godLess! Is Webster going PC with atheism? Do tell, Tim!
BTW
I heard the troll call my name,
but I shall not answer.
Starve the troll.
That’s right Karen. There is no moral code in atheism. How many times have I said the same thing? People argue with me when I say this. There is no moral code in atheism. All of our morals were instilled by religion. The foundation of our society was built by religious institutions.
Finally someone here admits it.
I take it that you can’t answer my question because ***abusive content deleted (hz)*** Avoiding a question or pretending it doesn?t exist doesn?t mean that you didn?t put your foot in your mouth or ***abusive content deleted (hz)***
Therefore, I will no longer mention that you said a coach?s prayer violates the establishment clause.
***abusive content deleted (hz)***
There is a reason Dave can?t ban me. If he did he would be endorsing your insidious comments against Christians and people of other religions. Doing such a thing would put him at risk of being sued. I am actually surprised Dave has that much common sense.
You see Dave does not represent the posts on his blog. He separates himself from the blog because he is aware that people on here say hateful discriminatory remarks about others. If he banned me for saying the things you people say and didn?t ban you, then he would be endorsing your views. That would leave Dave in a heap of problems because this blog and this site would be considered a hate site and a hate blog. Right now it is not because Dave and the owners of this blog tend to be smart enough to exclude themselves from the hateful comments. Peter Nuhn is not that smart and jeopardizes this site with every hateful thread that he begins. All that is missing is for a bored person with nothing to do like most of the people on here to complain about this site.
Yeah, that is basically it. There is your answer to Dave. Now, if you people continue, serious restrictions might be put on this site. The fact that R.A. has selectively edited my posts and changed its contents is more than enough to cause problems for this site.
Lucky for you, I don?t care what happens to this site and therefore I will not waste a large portion of time with it.
Interesting that Tommy’s online definition of atheism lists the archaic version of atheism: : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
first, then the definition that is more in keeping with what we hold:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
while for the religion definition, the archaic version comes in at number 3.
Hmmmm.
Tim
Yep. That could be a lenthy discussion. Let’s not hijack the thread any farther tho, eh?
Your Webster definition pretty much matches my own. Tho some here say atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, and I sometimes say that myself, I usually go for the doctrine that there just aren’t any gods. I can’t prove it. Just don’t see any evidence to say otherwise.
Here’s a couple from Webster’s online dictionary…
http://webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://webster.com/dictionary/atheism
The Webster online dictionary definition of religion seems to fall more in line with what Tim says is from his ‘60 version. That seems odd. The definition of atheism is much better than one would get from older dictionaries. Still curious what Tim’s dictionary says.
Karen,
Interesting comment regarding the “world as being strikingly different” –I would say that would represent a worldview about existence, which probably represent some truth and nontruth. (Could be a lengthy discussion by itself, don’t you think?)
However, the definition in Webster’s 2001 edition for atheism is: “the doctrine or belief that there is no God” Also, a mighty truth claim, indeed. So, does this definition match your own?
Tommy,
(see above)
karen:
I recall an old film, titled ‘I Heard the Owl Call My Name.”
But it sounds like a cool title for a short story.
Tim:
That’s good. Welcome. The last Timmy was insufferable (to quote Lassie).
I’m reading an ‘original intent’ into the context here?
It’s bidirectional, in answer to your query. ‘prohibiting’ & ‘respecting’, respectively.
I’m really getting an ‘original intent’ vibe, all righty.
At some juncture, since the church in question would be composed of American citizenry, there would be some kind of regulation required. Zoning permits, land ownership, granting sanctuary (does anyone do that anymore?), etc.
Au contraire, mon ami. 1st, large groups of people (religious or otherwise) tend to take advantage (give ‘em an inch, etc). 2nd, the dynamics of any given school, K12 or otherwise, often resemble a caste system of sorts. There are cliques (& that’s not just schools: that’s people as a rule), the ‘cool kids’. Mix religion into the heady mix of hormones run wild & formation of identity, you’re just asking for big trouble. 3rd, if you’re going to ‘original intent’, you also have to take into account that 18th, 19th, & earlier 20th CE schools were predominantly WASP affiliations. The diversity was not quite as large as we have now. Chances of say, a Jew, Hindi, or any other denomination being mixed into the populace were slim to none.
Lest we forget: while the majority has say, the minority has it as well.
Tim,
The online version is “a disbelief in the existence of deity” which is better that the 2001 “the doctrine or belief that there is no God”, which of course is better than the old “one who denies the existence of God”. I much prefer the “lack of belief in deities”. Interesting comparisons if anything.
RA
Yes, I was thinking of the Owl story when I used the troll line. If I recall correctly, hearing the owl call your name meant impeanding death. I hoped by ignoring the troll, I would reverse the spell and impart death upon him (as per this blog) instead.
Unfortunately, he seems to think that my silence means both concurrence on one issue and an admittance of defeat on another.
No matter. Let him think what he will. What can one expect from a (!)nurse who does not know the proper use of the term “purgative”?
Tim:
A little bit more, on Atheism.
http://www.answers.com/atheism -
“1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.”
When I 1st became an atheist, I looked it up there, the 3rd definition was “Godless immorality”. That’s a para: it’s obviously been changed since then.
2001? The way language changes so rapidly, 5 yrs. may as well be 5 computer (or dog) yrs.
Oh, & before you go any further (I’m guessing here):
Burden of proof goes to the believer (just in case).
impeanding should be: impending
aaach!
In a hurry.
Must share computer now.
See y’all later!
karen:
Oh my, almost sounds superstitious.
Silence signifies assent. Yeah, that’s goofy.
Sounds like a whole load of crap. Hehehehe.
Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he’ll starve to death while praying for a fish.
Reluctant,
Allow me to expand on all of this and try to link the church/state or religion/state separation and the definition of religion.
This might be too much of a stretch, but perhaps worthy of some consideration.
First let’s say that the definition of religion is determined to be a much broader definition to include all worldviews that explain existence, even, for example, the worldview that says existence cannot be explained; and let us say that the current worldview (or religion, if you will)of public schools or, perhaps, any other public entity, is that neutrality is the truth and the there is not such a thing as religious knowledge. Or, perhaps that Scientism or Naturalism is true or all religions are equally true and valid or that no religion is true, etc. etc. It would appear that any viewpoint on such issues of existence could be a religion by definition and therefore outlawed by the separation principles. This seems to create quite a problem. Any thoughts?
Reluctant,
and I forgot to thank you for the welcome, I will try not to be too much of a pest. If I cross the line, let me know.
Tim:
I think it is something of a stretch.
I’m curious: are you a major in philosophy?
Well, 1st off, there’s a difference between philosophy & religion. Some philosophies espouse a supernatural entity, whether directly or indirectly: but not all philosophies are religious in nature.
The dictionary defines Scientism as: ” 1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.”
I’d not heard the term before, but it’s suitable.
I adhere to Locke’s dictum, that reality is measured by the 5 senses. Matter may be measured in terms of finer (gas, steam, sound) & grosser (tangibles, more tactile &/or visual) but the pronounced lack of empirical data in re: the more spiritual realms really does weigh against the metaphysical aspects quite heavily.
I fancy meself a pragmatist, or as they say in Missouri: “Show me.”
I’m all up for a natter about the ‘meaning of existence’ but when all’s said & done, I pretty much revert to:
Everything just is.
Most folks find that intellectually unsatisfying, so I won’t hold it against you if feel the same.
Tim:
You’re welcome.
& when you do, you’ll know it, you betcha.
RA wrote:
beautiful…….
Tommy_godLess wrote:
i am not fond of the anti-god or absence of belief in god defintion of where i stand on this issue. i prefer, and state my case as, a “non-belief in a supernatural being of any kind.” that seems to satisfy my xtian family and few friends that know my belief. that definition best represents my true belief and is close to the online definition Tommy posted.
back to the topic at hand. although i don’t like the whole concept of the student led prayer, i can’t get too excited about the teacher participation.
i’m more concerned about the peer pressure issue. this is what started the problem for that Oklahoma family that recently won the trial but lost everything in the process. that is the true danger of the “harmless sport’s prayer” mentality.
Ebonyfax/Seeker?
mxracer652:
Good memory.
Comment from beepbeepitsme,
Let me try the blockquote again.
Comment from beepbeepitsme,
This one’s Old School,
Give a witch fire and she’ll stay warm for a day,
Set a witch on fire, and she’ll stay warm the rest of her life.
Whatever happened to Seeker?
And what about our friend from singapore who was going to do research …in Australia, I think. Can’t recall his screen name. Good guy.
Natasha’s been layin’ low lately too.
I always miss Nat when she’s not around.
Speaking of Natasha…honey, do you realize your name backwards is ah satan! on purpose or co-inky-dink?
karen:
Ah, 1 of Murphy’s laws state: “Friends come & go, but enemies accumulate.”
Karen, yes, the Amish school days are regulated by the state so that the children will have classroom time instead of working the farms all day (an Amish person told me that). Amish have unliscensed dentists but they practice illegally. For issues that can’t be treated with their tried and true remedies,the Amish community seek the services of liscensed doctors, vets, etc.
Even though they are a very religious community, it isn’t a oppressive as one might think. Believe me they smoke weed, drink beer, have a great deal of sex, and love country music (not me, I’m a metal girl). In other words, they have more freedom that a lot of secular families. Who woulda thunk it?
Ever read Piers Anthony’s Incarnations of Immortality?
cry4turtles
Maybe it was the Mennonites I was thinking of going off to college then. For some reason I thought the Amish occasionally sent some off to med schools an so on for the purpose of coming back to the community.
Thanks for the info.
LightningLucci
Nope. I’ve read two books by a Piers somebody-borrowed and returned already, long ago. But not that one
Regarding Tim’s issue with the public/private school system, my understadning from our history classes is that before the US, the idea of public schools was unknown. The founding fathers wanted to ensure an educated electorate, so the decided that everyone should receive a basic education. At the very beginning of our public school system, the churches ran the schools, because they were the only ones equipped to handle this sort of thing. As the country grew, the governance of schools was handed to the individual states, which decided to create a separate school system from the churches, since tax money would be supporting the schools. It was the states that separated schools from church, not the federal government. Once the 14th amendment was passed, it became the Fed’s responsibility to make sure that the states operated their schools, as public – tax supported institutions – in accordance with all constitutional principles.
Anyway, that’s what I remember from my High school history class.
karen,
This series by Piers Anthony had a character, Satan, who actually thought himself a good guy, who would masquerade as Natasha.
Always think of Satan now, when I hear the name Natasha. Should’ve named one of my kids that! hehe.
LL
I looked Piers up and the only title I recognized was “Isle of Woman”, which is one book I’m sure I borrowed, but don’t remember anything about it. I read it right before my last ECT series and those memories are pretty much wiped out.
Before I had kids, I dreamed of naming them Jesus Christ, F*ckU, God Dammit, and Sonofabitch, just so I could yell that string of words out the screen door followed by, “Come in for supper!”
“Course when it came tme to name my kids, I couldn’t do that to ‘em!
Regarding the history of public education…from answers.com:
“Sparta in classical Greece had a system of general public education. After that, basic education was generally by private tutors to the wealthy. In Medieval Europe, this was done by religious organisations such as monasteries or cathedral choir “song schools” which educated the priesthood rather than the general populace. At this time, grammar schools were founded in many towns, and universities were founded by the church to train the clergy.
Scotland led the way in implementing a system of general public education with free provision for the poor, starting in 1561 during the Protestant Reformation, with support from taxation being introduced in 1633. Reformation concepts such as the priesthood serving laypeople and the importance of the individual conscience and the supremacy of Scripture made widespread literacy important. In the late 18th century provision of public education emerged in other countries, as political philosophers argued that an educated citizenry was an essential component of a democratic society.
While in colonial America, as in Europe, schooling was often regarded as a prerequisite for religion on the basis of the same Protestant Reformation concepts, the Northwest Ordinance provided that “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
In the 19th century, industrialization and the rise of democratic nation-states led to the more widespread systematization of public schools. In France, for example, the state used public schools to foster national identity and linguistic conformity at the expense of separatist movements and regional dialects. The public school system in the United States has also been credited with being an important instrument in the assimilation of large numbers of immigrants. Education, at least at a primary school level, was made compulsory in some American states in the mid 19th century, in Scotland in 1872 and in England and Wales shortly afterwards.”
Also known as “The south’s gonna rise again” theory.
LL:
Ugh. Can’t abide Anthony. He’s more verbose than I am, & I can’t shut up as a rule.
All my buds, yrs. ago, were reading ‘Rides a Pale Horse’ & raving about it. So I picked it up.
Story idea was pretty cool, but the guy who took over for Death seemed obliged to explain to every single creature whose life he took, why he had to do it. It got outta hand quickly.
Of course, these buds were all raving about C.S Lewis (who’s about the drabbest fantasy writer who ever lived), so that explains a lot.
The fundamentalists in my town are using no school prayer as a way to accuse atheists for destroying our country and the nation. They claim we are responible teen pregnancy, gays, dropouts rates and drugs in our school. They claim we have brought the four horsemen to the school door. I can’t wait to tell about Richard Dawkins and the other three gentlemen. I don’t it was their idea what they should be or mine. I went to Catholic school. The first one was suppose to symbolize the devil. Mr. Dawkins being the leader of the brights, wouldn’t really fit that role.I prefer Condi Rice. The second one is suppose to be war. That would be Bush, none of the other gentlemen fit that role. Hitchens could be the third horseman since he did express interest in eating human flesh. HAAA. I hope the religious nuts don’t take him too seriously. Laura Bush would to more a candidate. Death is Cheney.
Whats wrong with student led prayer? Nothing! I am a student and you know what I pray in school, at lunch, before my sport activites, Heck you know what I’m even in BIBLE club so tell me whats wrong with that? nothing, I adn other christians don’t force people to pray, when I played football I was the only one on my team that prayed and I did it in the locker room by myself, and you know what it was other kids who came to me by themselves and wanted to pray with me, and that turned into a team prayer. The other students came by themselves, and we had a jewish coach and he was fine with it. Prayer has actually helped bring people together, but man to you people it is horrible. Last night I was at a sporting event with many teams from all over the region and my team prayed with other teams but the things all of us students prayed BY OURSElVES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FEILD INFRONT OF EVERYONE! there is nothing wrong with students praying
follower,
Nothing is wrong with any of that.
Well, that’s plenty of peer-pressure, but there’s still nothing wrong with what you’re talking about.
What exactly are you complaining about? Nothing you mentioned even touches on the topic of this thread and nobody is complaining about students praying of their own free will.
The issue here is with authority figures joining in public prayers. Teachers and Coaches have every right to pray in private, but joining a public prayer during a school function crosses the line.
Are you just screaming “persecution!” in order to have something to be angry about? Have you fallen for the Evil Atheists Conspiracy Theory instead of taking 10 minutes to think about this critically?
[...] unknown posted a noteworthy aricle today onHere’s a small snippetWhisner, 47 Ohio St.2d 181, 351 N.E.2d 750 (1976), the Ohio Supreme Court exempted Christian schools from certification and accreditation requirements. “…It has long been recognized that the right of a parent to guide the education, ….. Story idea was pretty cool, but the guy who took over for Death seemed obliged to explain to every single creature whose life he took, why he had to do it. It got outta hand quickly. Of course, these buds were all raving about C.S Lewis … [...]