Ill. Moment-Of-Silence Law Ruled Unconstitutional

[jarrod]

My personal disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't rise to the level of 'philosophy', though. I also don't enjoy cooking--is that a philosophy?

actually that would depend on your reasons for cooking & any beliefs you have about it. but archangel nailed it, your atheism shapes & is shaped by your concept of the world around you & how you relate to it.

philosophy in & of itself isn't "deep". we all have philosophies even if we don't examine them closely or think about them very much.

also, disinterest in religion as an activity doesn't qualify as atheism. that's just ambivelence . atheism is the belief that there is no god. a lot of folks confuse atheism with various forms of agnosticism.

jf

 

[arnisador]

If I believed there was a Christian god planning on torturing me for all eternity, I'd be religious out of sheer self-interest. If I believed that Australian rules football was a fascinating sport, I'd follow it. I believe there is no god, as I believe there are no unicorns and no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That isn't a philosophy--even in the weaker sense--in and of itself, though it follows from a world-view that is based on evaluating evidence and that could be construed as a personal philosophy (or just common sense).

The religious often assume that what is important to them is important to others, even if those others disagree with them. But to me religion is just one of many hobbies I don't indulge in.

 

[jarrod]

If I believed there was a Christian god planning on torturing me for all eternity, I'd be religious out of sheer self-interest. If I believed that Australian rules football was a fascinating sport, I'd follow it. I believe there is no god, as I believe there are no unicorns and no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That isn't a philosophy--even in the weaker sense--in and of itself, though it follows from a world-view that is based on evaluating evidence and that could be construed as a personal philosophy (or just common sense).

The religious often assume that what is important to them is important to others, even if those others disagree with them. But to me religion is just one of many hobbies I don't indulge in.

that's called rationalism, & for better or worse it isn't all that common as far as common sense goes.

why all the resistance to atheism being called a philosophy? it wasn't meant as any kind of put down.

plus we're getting away from our original question of how atheism is forced on society.

jf

 

[tellner]

And even if you believed there was a God why would you assume it was the 21st century Xtain one? Why not Mumbo Jumbo God of the Congo and all the other gods of the Congo? Why not Inana or Quetzalcoatl or Frigga or Shango or Bishamon or Kwan Yin?

"A moment of silence" has always been about sneaking the Xtians' rites into the public schools and forcing it on innocent children. It started off with mandatory Xtian prayer. When they couldn't coerce the innocent that way they went for "voluntary" Xtian prayer. When they couldn't get that they went for "spiritual meditation" and "a moment of silence". Every time that camel's nose has been slipped under the tent they've tried to cram in the whole humped beast.

I say kick that camel hard in the snout unless you want the rest of the herd in there. Let the Xtians guzzle their grape juice and munch their crackers. But we have to give equal time to every religion. Next up - Magister Peter Gilmore of the Church of Satan reading the Enochian Keys, followed by old-fashioned Pagan fertility rites, Sufi zikr, a big bowl of FSM pasta (Raaaamen!), all-night zazen, sacrificing a man to Odin Valfather, lighting the Sacred Fire of the Zoroastrians, Yezidi Devil Worship, possession by the Loa, smoking FROP with the Sub-genii and whatever else a team of deranged febrile over-caffeinated anthropologists can come up with.

Anything else would be an "establishment of [some particular] religion".

 

[Marginal]

Once again it's Minotriy rule in the good ol USA.

Saved from the tyranny of the majority? Seems like something the founding fathers specifically intended.

 

[Cryozombie]

Saved from the tyranny of the majority? Seems like something the founding fathers specifically intended.

I agree 100% Lets get Obama out of office since the Tyrranical Majority wanted him.

What's that? It doesnt work that way? Why, how Hypocritical of you.

 

[jarrod]

lot's of hostility on this thread from normally friendly folks...

 

[Cryozombie]

Yeah Im sorry, Im ****ing cranky tonite. Sorry Marginal.

 

[arnisador]

why all the resistance to atheism being called a philosophy? it wasn't meant as any kind of put down.

Well, choosing theism is a positive action, but atheism is less so. (Maybe it's different for Richard Dawkins.) Saying "I believe in X" is an affirmative statement but saying "Eh, I'm not sold on that" isn't a committed view. Why would atheism be a philosophy if a-unicornism isn't? I don't think atheists are saying "My bedrock belief is NO GOD" but I do think theists are saying "My bedrock belief is GOD EXISTS". What you don't believe doesn't strike me as a philosophy--a philosophy is what you do believe in. Theists see atheists in opposition to them and attribute to them equally strong but opposite feelings, it often seems; atheists--leaving aside the few activists suing people over school prayer and such--aren't actively not believing in god all day long.

And even if you believed there was a God why would you assume it was the 21st century Xtain one? Why not Mumbo Jumbo God of the Congo and all the other gods of the Congo? Why not Inana or Quetzalcoatl or Frigga or Shango or Bishamon or Kwan Yin?

I'm offended that you left out Thor, heathen. I'll give you partial credit for Frigg(a), though.

I had this discussion with someone at work just yesterday. I prefer "not religious" to "atheist" in part because people often think that if I'm an theist that I've rejected their religion specifically--as though I independently rejected every single Lutheran synod in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis. (As my friend said, "The Hindu religions must have taken you forever.") I'm not against religion--I just don't care about it as a personal matter. As a social/historical phenomenon I do find it interesting, alongside all others, but it's not for me. But if it was for me, I can't imagine how I'd choose one religion out of the absurdly many available. The very multiplicity of religions argues against the possibility that any one of them is right, to my mind.

"A moment of silence" has always been about sneaking the Xtians' rites into the public schools and forcing it on innocent children.

Agreed.

 

[Cryozombie]

Yes, those damn Xtians insisting you have silence to indoctrinate you.

An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don’t pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)

Right Right. 15 Minutes of "Non-instructional time" So what, I ask, makes A moment of Silence Wrong and Evil and "Indoctrinating", but "a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray" perfectly acceptable?

Oh, but how dare I speak out against those poor persecuted muslims right?

 

[jarrod]

arnisador what you're describing is called implicit atheism & still falls under philosophy. i think we're just disagreeing about what constitutes philosophy.

15 minutes of non-instructional time is bogus too.

jf

 

[arnisador]

i think we're just disagreeing about what constitutes philosophy.

Fair enough! I think I fall under weak than implicit atheism, as the latter refers to those who have not even been informed about the possibility of such a being existing.

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. —Richard Dawkins"

​

15 minutes of non-instructional time is bogus too.

But free time that could be used for any purpose at all is better than "a moment of silent [insert near-synonym for prayer here]", I'd say.

 

[Cryozombie]

But free time that could be used for any purpose at all is better than "a moment of silent [insert near-synonym for prayer here]", I'd say.

But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.

But that's ok. It's ok to call me a Cracker too. And make stereotypes about men as well. After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right? It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.

 

[jarrod]

But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.

But that's ok. It's ok to call me a Cracker too. And make stereotypes about men as well. After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right? It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.

people in general need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them or their beliefs. i would be pissed off if my kid missed out on 15 minutes of instruction so one person in the class could pray. it is a slippery slope of concession that i don't want to go down.

if you are supposed to pray at certain times of day, & you live in a society that doesn't stop at those times, you have to either modify how you worship, or expect to miss out on what's going on at that time. it has nothing to do with religious persecution, it's just practical. when you go to mexico, you should expect everything to be closed for a couple hours for seista. & when you go to class, you SHOULD expect instruction.

jf

 

[jetboatdeath]

I had a long e-mail conversation with this guy...
He could not explain how it was unconstitutional so he just got mean and quit responding...

To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Quick Question

Don’t you think forcing your atheist views on the state is the same as the Christians forcing them on us as well?

To: Hannah, Brian
Subject: Re: Quick Question
Thanks for writing.

In what way do you believe that I am forcing atheist views on the state? Nobody should do that. Let me know so that I have an opportunity to respond to anything that I feel is a misunderstanding on your part.

My intention is to demand and require that the state remain scrupulously neutral about matters of faith. Many people equate neutrality about religion with hostility against religion.

Supporting the revocation of anti-atheist laws, such as Article 19, Section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution

http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/ar-constitution/arcart19/arcart19-1.htm

is not forcing my atheist views on the state. It merely demands that atheists are afforded equal protections under the law.

I look forward to your reply.

Rob Sherman

To: Rob Sherman
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: Quick Question

That arkansas law is pretty goofie. I was more refering to the case you just won about the moment of silence.
No were in the law did it say you had to pray, in fact it said you could not.
105 ILCS 20/0.01) (from Ch. 122, par. 770)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.
(Source: P.A. 92‑832, eff. 1‑1‑03.)

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.
(Source: P.A. 95‑680, eff. 10‑11‑07.)


(105 ILCS 20/5)
Sec. 5. Student prayer. In order that the right of every student to the free exercise of religion is guaranteed within the public schools and that each student has the freedom to not be subject to pressure from the State either to engage in or to refrain from religious observation on public school grounds, students in the public schools may voluntarily engage in individually initiated, non‑disruptive prayer that, consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, is not sponsored, promoted, or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee.
(Source: P.A. 92‑832, eff. 1‑1‑03.)

Nevermind the fact that Separation of Church and State is a MYTH that is only supported by writings outside the constitution.

To: Hannah, Brian
Subject: Re: Quick Question

Precisely. It's the only law in the world (The Act) where the second paragraph (Section 5, below, with the red font) prohibits what the first paragraph requires. I challenged the constitutionality of the first paragraph (Section 1) only, because it clearly violated the constitutional requirement identified in the last sixteen words of Section 5.

Looking forward to your reply on that one.

Rob Sherman

To: Rob Sherman
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: Quick Question

But you still seem to think that the separation of church and state is in the constitution.

To: Hannah, Brian
Subject: Re: Quick Question

What I cite is Article I, Section 3 http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm and
Article X, Section 3 http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm
of the Illinois Constitution. Take a look at those and let me know what you think.

Are you in Illinois? If not, where are you?

Rob Sherman

To: Rob Sherman
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:29 PM
Subject: RE: Quick Question

Yes I am in Illinois, but nothing in Article1 Section 3 states anything about the separation of church and state. If you can show or explain to me were that is stated it would be of great help, again maybe it is a loop hole but I did notice that it said ANY religion I know atheist’s do not consider their faith, for lack of better word a religion but that in itself offers them no more rights than any other person in the state of Illinois.
And thanks for the correspondence it is more than I expected.
Brian

To: Hannah, Brian
Subject: Re: Quick Question

Separation of church and state is a mis-nomer. It should have always been described as a separation between religion and government.

RS

To: Rob Sherman
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: Quick Question

Agreed, but then what was the basis of your suite and the moment of silence?
And you have not shown were it is un-constitutional in either the state or national constitution.
Brian

Dawn and I respect the right of children to waste time praying, before school, after school or even during school. What we objected to was a law that required Dawn to waste her time, doing nothing during important class time that I, as a taxpayer, was paying for and for which Dawn is required by truancy laws to be there, so that religious kids could waste time praying without being interrupted by lessons from the teacher.

The basis of the suit was that the purpose of the law was to advance religion, in violation of the Lemon Test (let me know if you don't know what that means), since the law was renamed the Student Prayer Act, the main option available to students was to pray during instructional time, the amendment to the law was co-sponsored by three members of the General Assembly who are clergy, and the chief sponsor told me, on a major television news show, that the purpose of the law was to be a suggestion, from the General Assembly to kids, that they should begin each day by praying. That's hardly a secular purpose for a law, which the Lemon Test requires.

Rob Sherman

Wow your response sure took turn to a darker side of the conversation. Again because you think it is a waste of time doesn’t make it so. They way the law was written that was not the intent, now if the courts went on the “fact” that the chief sponsor’s intent was to suggest that kids pray, well may I suggest that the state send me all my taxes back from the last 16 years I have paid them. How long do you think it will take them to get it back to me?
The entire point of this is that this is America and it is MAJORITY rule, a couple of whiny people should not be able to dictate ANY law. Why not let the community decide what is taught in the school? If a community says that they want prayer to start the day so be it. If you don’t like it move out of the district.
But then that would be fair and well it seems as if you will have nothing to do with that. It’s all about Rob Sherman and what fits his agenda.
Any reply? And as a side note if you are concerned your child falling to someone elses suggestions you may want to spend more time teaching her about morals than the court process.
Thanks
Brian

He has not replied...

 

[elder999]

But since the only reason it's being given in the first place is to allow Prayer in school for Musims, it's Hypocritical and Prejudiced against Christians, I'd say.

But that's ok. It's ok to call me a Cracker too. And make stereotypes about men as well. After all It's only racisim if the White man does it right? It's only persecution if its not a Christian its being done to, and its only sexism if it effects women.

When I was a Christian, I prayed in school. I prayed over my lunch, and I prayed, well, quite a few other times during the day. No one ever knew. We had that "moment of silence crap," I prayed then too, but I didn't need it.

I still pray at work-on government property. Not to "Jesus," either. No one knows, or needs to know-in fact, I'd bet that the biggest gripe I'd face about it would be that I wasn't "praying in Jesus' name."

And I've never called anyone "Cracker." :lol:

 

[jarrod]

well jetboat, i gotta say i wouldn't have replied to you after your last email either.

one of the pitfalls of democracy is tyranny of the majority, which was brought up earlier but not really discussed. yes, in a democracy the majority of the people get to decide what laws go on the books, etc, etc. but that does not always make those things right. at one time the majority of our nation supported slavery, theft of indian land, denying women's suffrage, as well as minority rights. specifically, tyranny of the majority refers to when the majority of a democratic society choose to impose their will on the minority. & that's exactly what this is; a religious contingent trying get needless accomodations for their beliefs through a government institution.

jf

 

[elder999]

& that's exactly what this is; a religious contingent trying get needless accomodations for their beliefs through a government institution.

jf

Not to mention that they're not the majority. They're just a vocal slice of the majority, if that.....

 

[jarrod]

Not to mention that they're not the majority. They're just a vocal slice of the majority, if that.....

that's true; you could say they are the whiners!

jf

 

[jetboatdeath]

well jarrod I can see by your post that you would do the same as Sherman did back down and not reply, because you seem to not notice the jabs that he put in his post.
Let me quote a few...
"waste time praying"
"so that religious kids could waste time praying "

But i understand it's ok to bash on someone who you don't agree with and stick up for the ones you do.
Just try to remember that it has two sides.
He is the one who brought up relegion, he is the one who wanted to take it to that level. He is the one who insulted me, but again I know you kind of missed that.

BUT the point is he could not show that it was Unconstitutional, so he had to take it to that level, thats cool I can do that as well, but when I do please don't "blame" me.