In that article alone it mentions three seperate acts of the 'government' stepping on someone's personal belief, and demanding they not practice their religion in the way they want.
One, a teacher was told to keep his own personal Bible (from which he never taught from, merely had in public view) out of site. The teachers wwere permitted to keep personal effects on their desks. The Bible was simply that, a personal effect, much like a photograph or appointment book. But he was told he couldn't keep it where the students could see it.
The same man was told to remove the 10 commandments from a collage he had created and placed on his classroom wall. (Why have him remove the commandments? Why not ask him to also include Jewish prayers and Buhhdist teachings as well, in order to make the collage universal?) He did not require that the students learn the commandments, or even read them. He simply had them in place so that they may be seen. How can that be viewed as 'forcing' his religion on someone else?
And another man was sued by the Civil Liberties Union for praying with his football team. Were the boys required to listen to the prayers? I doubt it. He was merely praying amongst a group of people, but was silenced for it.
A quote from the article" "Please notice that the attack on religious freedom in America is on Christianity. No one is trying to silence the religious freedom of Muslims or atheists or humanists. Quite the contrary. We are told to 'understand' Muslims, to be sensitive to the atheists and to tolerate the humanists and their various denominations of 'isms' (environmentalism, feminism, secularism, socialism, communism), which we teach openly in our schools."
Take a good look at the 'seperation' that goes on in our schools. It is not a seperation of religion, it is a seperation of Christianity. Had the Bible instead been a book about Buhhda he would not have been asked to remove it.
And comparing the act of praying in a classroom to someone spouting racial slurs infront of children is the most rediculous analogy I've ever heard. People can't make racial comments towards other because they are harmful, bot mentally and possibly physically, if the comments start a fight.
Praying before your meal is not harmful to anyone, even if it is done by a teacher in front of students.
One, a teacher was told to keep his own personal Bible (from which he never taught from, merely had in public view) out of site. The teachers wwere permitted to keep personal effects on their desks. The Bible was simply that, a personal effect, much like a photograph or appointment book. But he was told he couldn't keep it where the students could see it.
The teacher is someone that students look up to, if you were black and a teacher had a book about the KKK and white power on his/her desk you would feel threatened and harmed by it.
_________________________________________________
The same man was told to remove the 10 commandments from a collage he had created and placed on his classroom wall. (Why have him remove the commandments? Why not ask him to also include Jewish prayers and Buhhdist teachings as well, in order to make the collage universal?) He did not require that the students learn the commandments, or even read them. He simply had them in place so that they may be seen. How can that be viewed as 'forcing' his religion on someone else?
Because to have religious items in a public school shows preference over one faith to another, or over NONE at all. You can not just have them all, because there are too many, and for those who do not believe you can't have any at all. It does hurt those who do not believe in those words in a religious was to have to see them. It makes them feel as if they might be seen as different, taught differenty because those are not their words of their faith.
_________________________________________________
And another man was sued by the Civil Liberties Union for praying with his football team. Were the boys required to listen to the prayers? I doubt it. He was merely praying amongst a group of people, but was silenced for it.
The fact that it was with a football team, which was probably a PUBLIC school team is that in him saying a prayer or asking for a moment of silence you are stating one faith over another. Unless he said a prayer for every faith out there, and then did none for those who do not believe it is not correct under the US laws. You may say or think that none of those people were told to pray or asked to, but you dont know, you do not know the faiths of all those involved and neither do I. But if it is anything like what I have seen before, not all those involved wanted to do it, they did it because their coach did it, and they didnt want to "let" him down, nor did they want to be removed from playing.
_________________________________________________
You also need to look where you found that information, that site seems to be a radical right wing group. If you look things like this up on other sites you will find that there are many people who have been hurt by things like this. You may not see it or even understand it. But it is out there.
Once again you are comparing expressing ones religios beliefs to radical (and dangerous) group like the KKK. There is no comparison here.
Groups like the KKK are harmful because of the words they preach and the things they do. As long as people are speaking peacefully about their religion there is no harm.
Though you claim that the harm comes from feeling different. Well what about that teacher? You want him to be tollerent of the people in his classroom and not express his own religion becuase it may differ from his students. But what about the students tollerence of their teacher's personal beliefs? Should they not allow him the freedom of religion as well?
You say that to be tollerent of religion we must remove it from the public altogether, whether it be Christianity, Buhhdism, etc. you want them all taken out of the public eye.
But what you are suggesting is the same thing that our founding father's were running from in the first place. They were not allowed to say what they wanted, or do what they wanted, because their personal beliefs offended someone. In their case it was the king. So they came to America under the basis of wanting religious freedom.
Only now we are taking those freedoms away and claiming it is so that we remain tollerent. You've gone back around to the beginning, and undone everything they fought for to start with.
Take a good look at the 'seperation' that goes on in our schools. It is not a seperation of religion, it is a seperation of Christianity. Had the Bible instead been a book about Buhhda he would not have been asked to remove it.
You must also look at the fact that other faiths do not push things like that on the masses as they have had it pushed onto them. _________________________________________________
And comparing the act of praying in a classroom to someone spouting racial slurs infront of children is the most rediculous analogy I've ever heard. People can't make racial comments towards other because they are harmful, bot mentally and possibly physically, if the comments start a fight.
I am sorry I do not understand what you said here, please restate as I am having issues following your train of thought. _________________________________________________
Praying before your meal is not harmful to anyone, even if it is done by a teacher in front of students.
Have you ever had someone sit in front of you who was not of your faith and pray / chat while you were in a public school setting? Where you teach your children to be tolerant of others and to respect all.
Also look up Does vs Santa Fe ISD, you will see HOW THIS IS HARMFUL, if you are not of that faith. One of the children was not allowed to eat his lunch because he would not say the prayer, and was made to sit outside. Where his sister saw him, took him home, and called there parents. The teacher had no idea where the child was, and did NOT inform the school of what happened. Anyone could of kidnapped that child and no one would of known because the teacher thought the child less of a person because he was of a different faith.
I am sorry I do not understand what you said here, please restate as I am having issues following your train of thought.
In my comments I wasn't talking about the people that try and force their religions on others, I was refering to those people who simply want to express their Christianity in a public place. Merely speaking about ones relgion in public is not harmful.
You compared the act of expressing ones personal beliefs to using racial slurs. You said we are not allowed to use racially sensitive comments at schools, or other public places.
Of course we can't. Racial slurs are harmful. They are harmful mentally, because they can cause emotional distress to those people that the comments are made to/about. They can also cause intense emotions which often lead to fights and/or other acts of violence, thus being harmful phisically as well.
So becuase racial slurs are harmful, the government says we cannot just go about spouting them in public. Good. That's the way it should be.
But to put racially derogative comments on the same field as expressing ones religious views (in a peaceful manner, of course, because that is what I was refering to) is stupid.
It's like comparing a Sunday church service in a park to a KKK meeting.
look up Does vs Santa Fe ISD
And in that case, yes, I agree, the government had every right to step in and take action. That teacher had no business trying to force his/her class to say a prayer, or punishing a student for not saying it. That is the boundary that people want in place. That is what they are trying to stop.
So in that particular instance I agree with the government's standing, and I hope that boy's family won their case.
But you didn't even metion the case I brought forward. The teacher who was ordered to remove his Bible from his desk? Was that fair? Was that allowing religious freedom?
In that article alone it mentions three seperate acts of the 'government' stepping on someone's personal belief, and demanding they not practice their religion in the way they want.
One, a teacher was told to keep his own personal Bible (from which he never taught from, merely had in public view) out of site. The teachers wwere permitted to keep personal effects on their desks. The Bible was simply that, a personal effect, much like a photograph or appointment book. But he was told he couldn't keep it where the students could see it.
The same man was told to remove the 10 commandments from a collage he had created and placed on his classroom wall. (Why have him remove the commandments? Why not ask him to also include Jewish prayers and Buhhdist teachings as well, in order to make the collage universal?) He did not require that the students learn the commandments, or even read them. He simply had them in place so that they may be seen. How can that be viewed as 'forcing' his religion on someone else?
And another man was sued by the Civil Liberties Union for praying with his football team. Were the boys required to listen to the prayers? I doubt it. He was merely praying amongst a group of people, but was silenced for it.
A quote from the article" "Please notice that the attack on religious freedom in America is on Christianity. No one is trying to silence the religious freedom of Muslims or atheists or humanists. Quite the contrary. We are told to 'understand' Muslims, to be sensitive to the atheists and to tolerate the humanists and their various denominations of 'isms' (environmentalism, feminism, secularism, socialism, communism), which we teach openly in our schools."
Take a good look at the 'seperation' that goes on in our schools. It is not a seperation of religion, it is a seperation of Christianity. Had the Bible instead been a book about Buhhda he would not have been asked to remove it.
And comparing the act of praying in a classroom to someone spouting racial slurs infront of children is the most rediculous analogy I've ever heard. People can't make racial comments towards other because they are harmful, bot mentally and possibly physically, if the comments start a fight.
Praying before your meal is not harmful to anyone, even if it is done by a teacher in front of students.
Reply
One, a teacher was told to keep his own personal Bible (from which he never taught from, merely had in public view) out of site. The teachers wwere permitted to keep personal effects on their desks. The Bible was simply that, a personal effect, much like a photograph or appointment book. But he was told he couldn't keep it where the students could see it.
The teacher is someone that students look up to, if you were black and a teacher had a book about the KKK and white power on his/her desk you would feel threatened and harmed by it.
_________________________________________________
The same man was told to remove the 10 commandments from a collage he had created and placed on his classroom wall. (Why have him remove the commandments? Why not ask him to also include Jewish prayers and Buhhdist teachings as well, in order to make the collage universal?) He did not require that the students learn the commandments, or even read them. He simply had them in place so that they may be seen. How can that be viewed as 'forcing' his religion on someone else?
Because to have religious items in a public school shows preference over one faith to another, or over NONE at all. You can not just have them all, because there are too many, and for those who do not believe you can't have any at all. It does hurt those who do not believe in those words in a religious was to have to see them. It makes them feel as if they might be seen as different, taught differenty because those are not their words of their faith.
_________________________________________________
And another man was sued by the Civil Liberties Union for praying with his football team. Were the boys required to listen to the prayers? I doubt it. He was merely praying amongst a group of people, but was silenced for it.
The fact that it was with a football team, which was probably a PUBLIC school team is that in him saying a prayer or asking for a moment of silence you are stating one faith over another. Unless he said a prayer for every faith out there, and then did none for those who do not believe it is not correct under the US laws. You may say or think that none of those people were told to pray or asked to, but you dont know, you do not know the faiths of all those involved and neither do I. But if it is anything like what I have seen before, not all those involved wanted to do it, they did it because their coach did it, and they didnt want to "let" him down, nor did they want to be removed from playing.
_________________________________________________
You also need to look where you found that information, that site seems to be a radical right wing group. If you look things like this up on other sites you will find that there are many people who have been hurt by things like this. You may not see it or even understand it. But it is out there.
Reply
Groups like the KKK are harmful because of the words they preach and the things they do. As long as people are speaking peacefully about their religion there is no harm.
Though you claim that the harm comes from feeling different. Well what about that teacher? You want him to be tollerent of the people in his classroom and not express his own religion becuase it may differ from his students. But what about the students tollerence of their teacher's personal beliefs? Should they not allow him the freedom of religion as well?
You say that to be tollerent of religion we must remove it from the public altogether, whether it be Christianity, Buhhdism, etc. you want them all taken out of the public eye.
But what you are suggesting is the same thing that our founding father's were running from in the first place. They were not allowed to say what they wanted, or do what they wanted, because their personal beliefs offended someone. In their case it was the king. So they came to America under the basis of wanting religious freedom.
Only now we are taking those freedoms away and claiming it is so that we remain tollerent. You've gone back around to the beginning, and undone everything they fought for to start with.
Reply
You must also look at the fact that other faiths do not push things like that on the masses as they have had it pushed onto them.
_________________________________________________
And comparing the act of praying in a classroom to someone spouting racial slurs infront of children is the most rediculous analogy I've ever heard. People can't make racial comments towards other because they are harmful, bot mentally and possibly physically, if the comments start a fight.
I am sorry I do not understand what you said here, please restate as I am having issues following your train of thought.
_________________________________________________
Praying before your meal is not harmful to anyone, even if it is done by a teacher in front of students.
Have you ever had someone sit in front of you who was not of your faith and pray / chat while you were in a public school setting? Where you teach your children to be tolerant of others and to respect all.
Also look up Does vs Santa Fe ISD, you will see HOW THIS IS HARMFUL, if you are not of that faith. One of the children was not allowed to eat his lunch because he would not say the prayer, and was made to sit outside. Where his sister saw him, took him home, and called there parents. The teacher had no idea where the child was, and did NOT inform the school of what happened. Anyone could of kidnapped that child and no one would of known because the teacher thought the child less of a person because he was of a different faith.
_________________________________________________
Reply
In my comments I wasn't talking about the people that try and force their religions on others, I was refering to those people who simply want to express their Christianity in a public place. Merely speaking about ones relgion in public is not harmful.
You compared the act of expressing ones personal beliefs to using racial slurs. You said we are not allowed to use racially sensitive comments at schools, or other public places.
Of course we can't. Racial slurs are harmful. They are harmful mentally, because they can cause emotional distress to those people that the comments are made to/about. They can also cause intense emotions which often lead to fights and/or other acts of violence, thus being harmful phisically as well.
So becuase racial slurs are harmful, the government says we cannot just go about spouting them in public. Good. That's the way it should be.
But to put racially derogative comments on the same field as expressing ones religious views (in a peaceful manner, of course, because that is what I was refering to) is stupid.
It's like comparing a Sunday church service in a park to a KKK meeting.
look up Does vs Santa Fe ISD
And in that case, yes, I agree, the government had every right to step in and take action. That teacher had no business trying to force his/her class to say a prayer, or punishing a student for not saying it. That is the boundary that people want in place. That is what they are trying to stop.
So in that particular instance I agree with the government's standing, and I hope that boy's family won their case.
But you didn't even metion the case I brought forward. The teacher who was ordered to remove his Bible from his desk? Was that fair? Was that allowing religious freedom?
Reply
Leave a comment