Page 6 of 66 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 658
Thanks Tree318Thanks

Thread: Separation of church and state

  1. #51
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,702
    Thanks
    42745

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Like I told you - allowing people to pray in public is not the same as indoctrination. Nor is everyone who prays in public a religious nutter.

    That's like suggesting my aunt or grandma was mind fucking me and trying to indoctrinate me into some cult because she said a blessing at the dinner table.

    Your argument loses all credibility when you make such absurd comparisons.

    But this board generally seems to have a paranoid fear of Cults - so I'll cut you some slack. ^^
    There is a difference between a well known family member versus a teacher in school that you do not know from Adam. A public school is the “state”, and as such cannot promote a religion, and no matter how you try to disguise it, teachers do not have the right to promote any religion
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #52
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    30,731
    Thanks
    25876

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Like I told you - allowing people to pray in public is not the same as indoctrination. Nor is everyone who prays in public a religious nutter.

    That's like suggesting my aunt or grandma was mind fucking me and trying to indoctrinate me into some cult because she said a blessing at the dinner table.

    Your argument loses all credibility when you make such absurd comparisons.

    But this board generally seems to have a paranoid fear of Cults - so I'll cut you some slack. ^^
    When you're at the dinner table, you're at HOME. When you're at school, you're in a public setting, with other students, who may come from VERY different religious backgrounds. The two situations are not at ALL comparable.
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #53
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    30,731
    Thanks
    25876

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The First Amendment prohibits an Establishment of Religion, not an Establishment of Hairstyles.
    Can you imagine if everyone in the nation had to go around with a Kim Jong Un hairstyle?

    Gah!!!
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #54
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,966
    Thanks
    4600

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, it is not. The phrase itself was adopted by the Supreme Court at least as far back as 1878, before the concept of "judicial activism" in contemporary politics even existed. You are complaining about a bogeyman - and so is the OP.
    Yes it is.

    It's an invention of the courts - as that phrase appears no where in the first amendment nor is it an accurate description of what the first amendment even says.

    This idea that people involved in Government or public service may only practice their religion in private is ridiculous and is basically the exact opposite of what the first amendment actually asserts.

  5. #55
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,966
    Thanks
    4600

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    That you are comparing a hairstyle to a religion shows that you have not thought very carefully about this question.

    If a teacher is praying in class when they are supposed to be teaching algebra or geography or English grammar, then they are not doing their assigned job. If it is lunch hour, and they are silently praying at their desk before eating their lunch, I don't think anyone has any objection. See the difference?
    I am comparing them in the sense that anything can be forced into private if you claim that possibly influencing others is a justifiable excuse to deny someone their rights.

    The fact you can't see that underscores why you haven't thought about this question enough.

  6. #56
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,702
    Thanks
    42745

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Yes it is.

    It's an invention of the courts - as that phrase appears no where in the first amendment nor is it an accurate description of what the first amendment even says.

    This idea that people involved in Government or public service may only practice their religion in private is ridiculous and is basically the exact opposite of what the first amendment actually asserts.
    If a teacher tries to convert my kids is it ok if I get them fired?

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,966
    Thanks
    4600

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, it is not. No teacher has ever merely "pray[ed] in front of students," unless they happened to belong to the same church, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that one has.
    What's intellectually dishonest is to claim I said things I never said.

    What I actually said in that quote was setting up a state religion is a long way from forbidding teachers from praying in front of students. And yes, it is.

  8. #58
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,966
    Thanks
    4600

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    If a teacher tries to convert my kids is it ok if I get them fired?
    Yes. If they are actively trying to convert your child then they should be fired.

  9. #59
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    30,731
    Thanks
    25876

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I am comparing them in the sense that anything can be forced into private if you claim that possibly influencing others is a justifiable excuse to deny someone their rights.

    The fact you can't see that underscores why you haven't thought about this question enough.
    Ian had the best response to this silliness and nonsense of yours in his post #50, and I wish to God that I had written it, because it is succinct, funny, and dead-on correct:

    The First Amendment prohibits an Establishment of Religion, not an Establishment of Hairstyles.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  10. #60
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,655
    Thanks
    30028

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Allowing people to freely practice their religion in public is not the same as an endorsement - nor does it amount to it.
    When a government employee does so while in the course and scope of his/her employment, it is absolutely the same. If the teacher does so in private, obviously it is not a problem. If the teacher does it as part of, say, a political protest outside of school (e.g., supporting or opposing a war), it is not a problem. If the teacher does so in class in front of his/her students, an endorsement is exactly what it is; in that circumstance, the teacher is teaching the students, and excluding any who do not wish to participate (or whose parents do not wish them to participate, setting them apart from the other students and using peer pressure to enforce conformity (or punish the failure to conform).

    If you have trouble believing this, then you have never been subjected to peer pressure on account of religious non-conformity to an overwhelming majority. I have, and my future solution to such problems (which I am, of course, unlikely to experience again) would be, shall we say, somewhat unpopular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    {I}t's not the job of the Government or the courts for that matter to try and control who does or doesn't have influence on others.
    When it comes to schools, the teachers have influence on the students - whether public or private schools. Public schools are operated by the government. Therefore, if the teachers are teaching or publicly (i.e., on the job) displaying religion, they are doing so (whether or not with the government's imprimatur) to influence the students. Otherwise, why even care? Why is this even an issue? It is an issue precisely because they want to influence the children to be religious (of a particular religion) and are complaining for being denied that power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    So if a student is inspired by their teacher's faith - so what? That's not something that should be litigated.
    Yes, it is. The government is prohibited from teaching religion to anyone, and public school teachers are government employees. If the "inspiration" comes from outside the school - again, e.g., if they happen to attend the same church - then that is not a problem. But they cannot use their government position to promote religion.

Page 6 of 66 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Separation of church and state.
    By Rev. Hellh0und in forum Current Events
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 11th November 2012, 07:03 AM
  2. Separation of church and state
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 1st November 2009, 04:22 PM
  3. Separation of Church and State
    By Tick in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 19th September 2008, 02:24 AM
  4. Separation of church and state
    By Jack Flash in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 10th April 2008, 11:19 AM
  5. Separation of Church and State
    By Jack Flash in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 30th January 2008, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed