How does having a prayer said in your hearing hurt anyone? A real atheist would just think that the person praying was talking to himself. This is just Leftist hatred of Christianity.
"An Alabama school district has been accused of allowing prayers that invoke the name of Jesus during high school football games, according to a complaint filed by a national atheist organization.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation said the Lauderdale County school district has violated the First Amendment by allowing the prayers at Brooks High School.
The complaint was lodged by a single resident who objected to the student-led prayer before high school football games played on school property.
The Times Daily newspaper identified the complainant as Jeremy Green. In an email to the newspaper, Green said he was taking a stand for the so-called “separation of church and state in an effort to protect the constitutional rights of the non-religious.”
Valentine said that to his knowledge, no one has ever lodged a complaint with the school system about the prayers..... He said the complaint has generated lots of telephone calls – mostly in support of keeping the prayers.
McKelvey said he’s attended football games when students deliver prayer and to his knowledge they have always been benign – mostly prayers for the players, the coaches, the referees and the fans.
“They are in the Christian context with the student ending the prayer in Jesus’ name,” he said.
Source
22 comments:
Green said he was taking a stand for the so-called “separation of church and state in an effort to protect the constitutional rights of the non-religious.”
And he would do this by denying the constitutional rights of the religious?
The constitution does not give him the right to not see or hear anything religious, it justly allows him to not participate in religious activities he does not care for.
Jon, I see a close connection between the school "club" issue that appeared in Tongue Tied a few days ago and this issue, that I knew I would find on TT this morning.
So I am replying to you here.
I am not against religious activity in schools and other places. I would be quite comfortable with the Christian "club" if those who run it could state clearly that they respect the differences between cultures and creeds and are willing to accept and respect others as equals.
I would be quite comfortable with prayers at sports events if those prayers took place in a room which people would enter for the express purpose of engaging in such prayer. My objection is to prayer thrust on a captive audience who have entered a venue for ANOTHER purpose.
Thus, to answer you Jon, if a Jewish group on campus were to put up a sukkah to which people could enter, should they so desire, to hold the lulov and etrog, I would have no objection. And that is what they do. They do not seek to have that activity become a part of a gathering that takes place for another purpose.
When I was a child, I was challenged again and again to justify my non-acceptance of Christian principles and practice. These challenges came both from classmates and from teachers. As I child, I was unequal to the task of justifying myself to an adult to whom I was required to show "respect".
Normally I do not reply to people who choose to remain anonymous but I have to say that the viewpoint the the above comment in this thread is revealing. The constitutional rights of the religious are not denied by my objections. They would be only if I objected to their prayers in a room designated for that purpose. It is not a matter of "seeing or hearing" religious activity. It is a matter of being PRESUMED to be a PART of that activity because one is part of a captive audience.
It is a matter of being PRESUMED to be a PART of that activity because one is part of a captive audience.
A school football game is not a captive audience. It is a voluntary association.
The constitutional rights of the religious are not denied by my objections.
I'm sorry, if you are telling a group of kids they cannot pray on their own time you are violating their rights.
Well said!!
Jonathan Lewin: The problem with your suggestion is that you have no problem denying these kids the right to the free exorcize of their religion.. I dont recall the clause in the first amendment that requires people to pray only in rooms specifically approved for prayer.. You have the constitutional right to not pray, but you do not have the right to stop them from praying.
Student led...
The audience at a sports event is most definitely a captive audience. The gentleman who wrote at 1:53 AM but who could not bring himself to give us his name appears to maintain that the sports event "belongs" to those who want to engage in Christian prayers.
I get the message. You are saying: "This sports event is OUR turf. If you don't like what we do on our turf, just go away."
Well, it's not your turf. Other people also have the right to participate in sports events and you have no right make their participation contingent on their presumed participation in your prayers.
Nowhere in my message did I deny anyone the right to pray in any way that he or she wishes. It is obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that my criticism was directed at people who wish to use some OTHER activity as an oportunity to shove their religion down the throats of other people.
So, you various "anonymous" writers, don't pretend to be stupid. I know that you understand the point that I have made, even if that point threatens your turf.
The audience at a sports event is most definitely a captive audience.
It is most definitely not. Attendees are not required to attend a game. There is no repercussion or denial of rights if they choose not to attend.
It is a free association.
Other people also have the right to participate in sports events and you have no right make their participation contingent on their presumed participation in your prayers.
No one is denied the right to participate in a sports event by spontaneous student led prayer which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is well within the scope of the First Amendment.
Nowhere in my message did I deny anyone the right to pray in any way that he or she wishes.
Of course you did. You want people to pray or not pray in a manner of which you approve.
You did say "I would be quite comfortable with prayers at sports events if those prayers took place in a room which people would enter for the express purpose of engaging in such prayer," did you not? Or do you think that your idea of shoving people in a room that you approve is "any way that he or she wishes" to pray?
So, you various "anonymous" writers, don't pretend to be stupid. I know that you understand the point that I have made, even if that point threatens your turf.
The only person who is acting in a "stupid" manner is yourself who has chosen to take an untenable position based on a wrongful definition of "captive audience" and then launching an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with you.
I suppose because I am a real atheist I don't really see what the fuss is.
I find myself at times in places where prayers are said and am not at all bothered by it.
I just bow my head in respect for the occasion and the faith of others. Is that so hard to do?
I certainly don't see believers "shoving anything down my neck"
I am pleased that they have the comfort of faith
Nor do I shove my atheism down anybody's neck. I will mention that I am an atheist if that comes up but I NEVER try to persuade others to that view or criticize their Christian or Jewish faith.
I get on well with Hindus and Buddhists too. I in fact have a small Ganesha just inside my front door to honor the beliefs of the Indian "boys" (In India you are a "boy" until you marry) who also live in my house. It helps them to feel welcome.
In my view that is what real tolerance looks like.
Oh wow JonJay. Are you just an ultra weak atheist / masochistic "whipping boy", or a pretend atheist to give some pseudo counter-weight to the overwhelming "Christian" propaganda displayed on these threads - which you deliberately encourage by the topics you choose to upload for them to "froth over"!
Jonathan Lewin: Your post ignores the fact that the team praying together on the field is them using their First Amendment rights to the free exorcize of their religion and that locking them in away in some building where you cant see them praying would deny them that very right. Nothing you can say will make it otherwise.
It seems to me that for some atheists (actually anti-theists), their attitude boils down to, "There is no God, and I hate him."
It seems to me that for some atheists (actually anti-theists), their attitude boils down to, "There is no God, and I hate him."
That seems to be a over generalization.
As Jon noted, he is not offended by the religious activities of people nor should the religious be offended by the stance or beliefs of the non-religious.
It is a shame and wrong when either groups starts forcing their beliefs on the other.
As Jon noted, he is not offended by the religious activities of people nor should the religious be offended by the stance or beliefs of the non-religious.
Jon actually fits the classification of atheist.
But some people—such as one of the Anonymous commenters here, Mr. Green in this article and some of the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins and especially Dan Harris—are actively battling a god they claim does not exist. They are so proactive in working to destroy even the very idea of god that it smacks of a personal vendetta fueled by hate. That's why I called them anti-theists.
BTW, making a case for why you think x is correct is not "forcing." Suing someone or otherwise attempting to use legal (or physical) coercion is "forcing." Teachers (of all kinds) and scientists do the former as a matter of routine. So do opinion writers, book authors, public speakers (of all kinds), salesmen, critics (of all kinds), lawyers, protesters, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting together an argument to convince someone of an idea they should accept or an action they should perform (or not) of their own free will. In fact, I would say that civilization could not exist without people make a case to each other.
If you don't believe in Santa Claus, does that mean you hate him?
Anti-theists by definition are against the affect on society that theism has (or the belief in a god/s - mainly the traditional anthropomorphic gods of Judeo-Christianity and Islam).
If they have some freudian reason for turning against religion, then the same can be said for people turning *to* religion. So often you hear of people becoming religious after a traumatic personal experience of some sort.
Christianity itself is mainly due to Saul of Tarsus (aka. St.Paul) who had a traumatic pyschological episode as a reaction to his previous "life-style", but which may have just been an epileptic fit or "brain-fart": much like many other so-called saints who regretted their earlier lives and turned to religion as a "savior". (Mohammed too!)
^^^ This guy ^^^ (Anon 2:42) is one of the ones I'm talking about.
And just what is Luke talking about that makes any sense at all? It's so obvious that his verbose posts simply try to obscure what they lack in meaningful content!!
Oh wow - Luke has just woken up from his erotoic dreams about that romantic image of Jesus we've all come (or cum) to know!
ACLU founded by a communists
"...accused of ALLOWING prayers..."
The school has no more right to prevent these young people from praying than it does to mandate that they have one - whether it be on school property or off.
John Paladin
Schools runs on TAXPAYER money. Taxpayer money doesn't pay for free PR time for YOUR invisible friend. You can have as much of him as you want on time and dirt that taxpayers who don't want to hear it aren't required to show up on to see their kids play ball. Tell ya what...for every second you get to lead prayer on taxpayer land, I get that long to rattle off my list of huge atrocities conducted for your god by his followers. Because doesn't every religion of peace (none of them) need some truth now and then?
Post a Comment