Young atheist needs support

[elder999]

It implies freedom from a state mandated religion. The separation of church and state was designed to keep the state out of religion, had nothing to do with keeping religion out of public discourse or public life in anyway.

The founders did not want government to institute any nationalized religion as had been seen throughout history. They intended for citizens to be free to exercise religion as they individually chose.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to ensure that congress did not favor any one religion in such a way as to limit the faith of others.

But having a very public prayer, at a very public ceremony, at a public school, implies that the state supports that one religion over another, and mandates that people be there for it.

Don't get me wrong: I grew up with a minister for a father, at a time when it meant that he was meant to offer some sort of blessing or invocation at all sorts of public events: little league dinners, Boy Scout meetings, and, yes, graduations (though not from high school...)-Dad had a few non-denominational prayers for just such occasions-they didn't even mention "Jesus Christ," because it was New York, and you could count on their being non-Christians in attendance. Next time I'm at my mom's, though, I'm gonna have to dig through his stuff and have another look at them, because I'm pretty sure there weren't any that took atheists into consideration, and they all mentioned "God."

That said, the kid's right, and within his rights, and has exercised them, which isn't always easy-so he has to reap the consequences, which, to me, are proving to be far greater than his simple discomfort with a few words that should be essentially meaningless to him.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But having a very public prayer, at a very public ceremony, at a public school, implies that the state supports that one religion over another, and mandates that people be there for it.

Actually, attending graduation is a voluntary event to the best of my knowledge. It's a symbolic ceremony; one has already graduated at that point.

Now, I do understand, and agree with you, that when the state sponsors an activity and involves religious prayers by clergy, it gives the appearance of state-sponsored religion. I'd be fine with it being discontinued. It may be traditional to have a prayer at a high-school graduation, but not having one in no way diminishes the graduation experience as far as I can tell; nor does it render graduation invalid. Who would argue that a person hadn't really graduated from high school because a benediction wasn't given first during the ceremony?

Given, however, that the tradition is legal to the best of my knowledge, and has withstood numerous attacks in court by the ACLU and others, I do not see what interest is served by distressing the many in favor of the one at this late date. If he is that concerned about being forced to be present when a benediction is given, he does not have to attend.

Ultimately, graduation is about the graduates, but it is not for any one person. It is a community event, sponsored by the school, and for the benefit of the families, the graduates, and the community at large. One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO. If the community objects, that is obviously a different matter; these are community standards.

High school students are full of angst, among other things. Having stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have preferred it left alone. I would consider this a life-lesson and move on. Perhaps just me.

 

[fangjian]

I do however think that prohibiting any showing of religion from any government related function or ceremony is not only violating the spirit of the Amendment, but is just pandering to the religion of atheism, or anti religion, or the religion of no religion... whatever you want to call it. So give me freedom from the religion of atheism....

Secularism is the best way to go. It's the only way. We don't need any supernatural stuff and mythology to be in state/gvt etc. property. Scientology, Satanism and all the rest can all stay within their own buildings. How does this not make sense?

The religion of atheism. lolz

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Majority rule"
We don't live in a Democracy, Thank Franklin.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Secularism is the best way to go. It's the only way. We don't need any supernatural stuff and mythology to be in state/gvt etc. property. Scientology, Satanism and all the rest can all stay within their own buildings. How does this not make sense?

The religion of atheism. lolz

Because it is unconstitutional, for one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So if it is restricted to their "own buildings," then that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I can only exercise my religion in places you designate? Uh, no.

A person is elected to public office and they are no longer allowed to speak in public of their religion or their beliefs, or express their devotion to whatever God they worship? Again, I would call that an infringement on the 'free exercise' clause.

Let us say this; there is a fine line between a state-sponsored religion (establishment) and a person who is a representative of the state (elected official) expressing their own beliefs in public (free exercise). Sometimes they cross each other; sometimes it's a gray area and courts have to get involved to decide it.

But as much as I am most definitely in favor of living in a nation which is not a "Christian nation," I am also not in favor of denying the rights of those of us who are Christian (or Jewish or Muslim, or even Satanists) to practice their religion. Even in public, even in office.

We are not a 'Christian nation' as some have insisted. But we are a nation that is largely comprised of Christians, and those Christians have the right not just to believe as they wish, but to express those beliefs in public.

When we speak of freedom from religion, we mean freedom from having a religion forcibly imposed upon us. I agree that this should never happen. Not even the appearance of it.

When we speak of freedom of religion, we mean the freedom not just to believe as we choose, but to express ourselves as we choose; so long as that expression violates no laws and violates no one else's Constitutional rights.

I am not aware of a Constitutional right to not have to see, hear, or otherwise experience public displays of religious expression, our young high school student notwithstanding. One can be an atheist; but one has no civil liberty promise of not seeing or hearing religious speech. One must accommodate those who believe, just as believers must accommodate those who wish to speak of not having a religion at all.

Imagine if freedom of speech were literally interpreted as meaning freedom not to hear what one does not want to hear. That's how this is being turned around.

Freedom from being exposed to religion? No such thing. Only freedom from being forced to adopt a state religion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"Majority rule"
We don't live in a Democracy, Thank Franklin.

We live in a representative republic, but we also have aspects of democracy incorporated into our system of governance. This is represented by plebiscites and other forms of direct vote, where indeed the simple majority of registered voters becomes the law.

It is also fairly-well understood in our legal system that communities have the right to live by the standards they find acceptable - so-called 'community standards' which are understood to differ from place to place and time to time. They may not infringe upon civil liberties, but they can, to the extent possible, live as the majority of them (the 'community') please.

An example of this is seen in obscenity laws, where the standards can differ vastly from one state to another, even one city to another. Not fun, but perfectly legal.

 

[fangjian]

Because it is unconstitutional, for one.



So if it is restricted to their "own buildings," then that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I can only exercise my religion in places you designate? Uh, no.

A person is elected to public office and they are no longer allowed to speak in public of their religion or their beliefs, or express their devotion to whatever God they worship? Again, I would call that an infringement on the 'free exercise' clause.

Let us say this; there is a fine line between a state-sponsored religion (establishment) and a person who is a representative of the state (elected official) expressing their own beliefs in public (free exercise). Sometimes they cross each other; sometimes it's a gray area and courts have to get involved to decide it.

But as much as I am most definitely in favor of living in a nation which is not a "Christian nation," I am also not in favor of denying the rights of those of us who are Christian (or Jewish or Muslim, or even Satanists) to practice their religion. Even in public, even in office.

We are not a 'Christian nation' as some have insisted. But we are a nation that is largely comprised of Christians, and those Christians have the right not just to believe as they wish, but to express those beliefs in public.

When we speak of freedom from religion, we mean freedom from having a religion forcibly imposed upon us. I agree that this should never happen. Not even the appearance of it.

When we speak of freedom of religion, we mean the freedom not just to believe as we choose, but to express ourselves as we choose; so long as that expression violates no laws and violates no one else's Constitutional rights.

I am not aware of a Constitutional right to not have to see, hear, or otherwise experience public displays of religious expression, our young high school student notwithstanding. One can be an atheist; but one has no civil liberty promise of not seeing or hearing religious speech. One must accommodate those who believe, just as believers must accommodate those who wish to speak of not having a religion at all.

Imagine if freedom of speech were literally interpreted as meaning freedom not to hear what one does not want to hear. That's how this is being turned around.

Freedom from being exposed to religion? No such thing. Only freedom from being forced to adopt a state religion.

Good post. When I said ' their own buildings' I just meant not on state/gvt buildings. Of course people can say whatever in public.

So I should assume that you have no problem with Islamic or Scientology stuff on government buildings?

 

[elder999]

Actually, attending graduation is a voluntary event to the best of my knowledge. It's a symbolic ceremony; one has already graduated at that point.

Now, I do understand, and agree with you, that when the state sponsors an activity and involves religious prayers by clergy, it gives the appearance of state-sponsored religion. I'd be fine with it being discontinued. It may be traditional to have a prayer at a high-school graduation, but not having one in no way diminishes the graduation experience as far as I can tell; nor does it render graduation invalid. Who would argue that a person hadn't really graduated from high school because a benediction wasn't given first during the ceremony?

Given, however, that the tradition is legal to the best of my knowledge, and has withstood numerous attacks in court by the ACLU and others, I do not see what interest is served by distressing the many in favor of the one at this late date. If he is that concerned about being forced to be present when a benediction is given, he does not have to attend.

From the kids email in the OP:

due to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if they ignored me, they ceased it. The school backed down, but that’s when the shitstorm rolled in.

Given that he's "won," though, what support does he expect, exactly?

One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO. If the community objects, that is obviously a different matter; these are community standards.

High school students are full of angst, among other things. Having stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have preferred it left alone. I would consider this a life-lesson and move on. Perhaps just me.

I agree with you entirely, here.....

 

[Twin Fist]

One person's distress at knowing that a benediction is being said should not be a reason to remove that portion of it, IMHO......Having stirred the pot, this one is discovering that some folks would have preferred it left alone. I would consider this a life-lesson and move on. Perhaps just me.


re-posted for truth

i got no sympathy for this little Mr "i gotta have it my way cuz i am special"

i hope he learns the REAL hard way that sometimes, it just isnt about what YOU want

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So I should assume that you have no problem with Islamic or Scientology stuff on government buildings?

I don't want any religious symbology on the sides of government buildings. Not Christian, not anything. What I meant was that the people that make up our government, including educators, politicians, office workers, and etc, are all entitled to 'free exercise' of their religion, no differently than you or me. What that amounts to is that I can't demand that government employee not pray, or pray to a specific God or in a particular way; that's their own business, including speaking of their beliefs in public - whatever they may be. Putting the symbols on the sides of the buildings implies, to me, an endorsement of a particular religion, and this I would feel crosses the think but indistinct line between church and state.

 

[clfsean]

Eh I learned (not quickly, but painfully) to pick your battles going from bachelorhood to insta-family with 2 stepdaughters, at the time aged 3 & 5.

He picked his battle... he has to deal with the fallout. Good on him for cowboying up & standing his ground, but he didn't choose wisely IMHO. He felt he needed to make a statement. Apparently it's not bothered him to the point of needing to make the statement in his teenage life so far. But at this time, it bunched his boxers.

Ok... he's been heard. Now he has to deal with the aftermath.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

From the kids email in the OP:

due to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if they ignored me, they ceased it. The school backed down, but that’s when the shitstorm rolled in.

Given that he's "won," though, what support does he expect, exactly?

Actually, when I read that, my alarm bells went off. I tend to doubt it happened quite that way, although the student may have interpreted it that way based on his actions and the outcome he received. I think the student could have 'contacted the ACLU' all he liked, and nothing much would have happened. The ACLU has fought this battle before, and lost. It's not one they're likely to get into again soon, IMHO.

As to your statement, that's exactly right. He won; now he also wants them to loft him overhead and proclaim him a hero of liberty. You won, kid, perhaps only through sheer bravado; the other guy blinked and backed down. You fed him a **** sandwich. I would not expect him to tell you how delicious it is. The fact that he thinks you're pretty much scum of the earth? Well, that kind of goes with that whole unwanted hero thing. Life-lesson time again.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People think that there should be no fall out for their actions.
Part of being a real adult is accepting responsibility.
It's also knowing what battles are really worth the fight.

 

[fangjian]

i hope he learns the REAL hard way that sometimes, it just isnt about what YOU want

What exactly is that suppose to mean?

[QUOTEHe picked his battle... he has to deal with the fallout. Good on him for cowboying up & standing his ground, but he didn't choose wisely IMHO. He felt he needed to make a statement. Apparently it's not bothered him to the point of needing to make the statement in his teenage life so far. But at this time, it bunched his boxers.
[/QUOTE]

This seems to be everyone's sentiment so far. Yes it is a life lesson. Nothing wrong with picking battles. As long as he isn't assaulted or anything, it's probably a battle worth picking, at least IMO.

So far I got: Bill Mattocks says they are free to hold prayers or any other type of religious stuff on state/gvt property, but just not put 'props' up or anything.

TF says. 'majority rules'. But I'm curious, which majority? Some areas are Mormon majority, some Muslim, or do you mean the 'majority' of the entire USA? Or entire state of _____________?

 

[Twin Fist]

community standards. Bill covered it nicely

i meant exactly what i wrote. I hope he learns, the real hard way, that sometimes, it isnt about what YOU want, it is about what everyone wants, and if you piss off everyone else, you are gonna have to pay the price for that

 

[CoryKS]

This is utterly asinine. You know what, I'm an atheist who was raised in a very religious community, and I also sat through events like graduations where someone offered a prayer. The result? Twenty minutes later, I had a diploma. BFD.

Nobody is making him pray. Nobody is making him say the words or go through the motions. He is not courageous, he's an intolerant little attention whore.

 

[Carol]

this is utterly asinine. You know what, i'm an atheist who was raised in a very religious community, and i also sat through events like graduations where someone offered a prayer. The result? Twenty minutes later, i had a diploma. Bfd.

Nobody is making him pray. Nobody is making him say the words or go through the motions. He is not courageous, he's an intolerant little attention whore.

qft.

 

[fangjian]

Isn't it part of the law though, that public school-sponsored events are not allowed to have religious content as part of their ceremony? Or is it 'cause the prayer is done by a student or something( like a loop hole)?

I know in CT at my kids' school they do the pledge with the religious content in it. I was gonna say something to the school, but I noticed that CT is one of the states that doesn't have it banned yet.

If anyone has a link for the actual federal laws in question or state law, I'd appreciate it. I've searched around and find anything I'd consider official.

 

[elder999]

Isn't it part of the law though, that public school-sponsored events are not allowed to have religious content as part of their ceremony? Or is it 'cause the prayer is done by a student or something( like a loop hole)?

While the schools, their administration and teachers cannot promote religion or prayer during the day, the students right to pray,or hold discussions with religious content.While the school itself cannot initiate or force students to participate in prayer, they can support and give official recognition to the nation's religious heritage.

So the law is rather schizophrenic-as Bill noted, this has been in court several times, and the atheists usually lose-in part because there the law is somewhat open to interpretation, and it's usually interpreted by elected officials, or political appointees....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So far I got: Bill Mattocks says they are free to hold prayers or any other type of religious stuff on state/gvt property, but just not put 'props' up or anything.

Not exactly, but that is kind of what it works out to.

The Constitution says two things about religion. First, that government is not to establish any, and second, that the government may not restrict the free practice of it. Some refer to that as the 'establishment clause' and the 'free exercise clause'. They are two different things. Sometimes they conflict with each other, and we have lawsuits that end up as high as the Supreme Court.

I cannot say that the government is free to hold prayers or other religious observances on state property per se - I can only say that in recent court cases, the courts have held that SOME such observances do not tend to 'establish' a government preference for a given religion. You can disagree with that - sometimes I also disagree with that. I am stating what is, not necessarily what ought to be.

Other observances DO tend to 'establish' according to the courts. For example, teacher-led prayer does. Having the words 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't. Again, one can argue that this is right or wrong - I would not disagree with anyone who took either side on these - I am merely saying what the courts have ordered. Period; there is no discussion once the Supreme Court says so, unless they themselves come back to it in another court case.

In some cases, the courts have held that some religious symbols put up on state property DO violate the 'establishment' clause - for example, Nativity scenes at Christmas. Others do not - I am not sure, but I think the 'Ten Commandments' didn't (can't recall).

There is no hard-and-fast rule. It's all down to the interpretation of the court on a particular case. They decide whether or not a given act infringes on the establishment clause or the free exercise clause, and to what degree one side has to give in.

It's messy, sorry.