This is why...Follow

No way. Football games are already long enough.

Too cutsie.

Guess you don't have to worry about your kids getting subspended from school for being a Witch.

My Pegan/Wiccan daugther was 6 years ago, because some girl though my daugther cast a hex on her. My daugther then had gone to the principle, before the girl did and told them she thought there may be a problem, to which she was asked if she was a witch.

Since her father was raising her as Wiccan at the time she said yes.

My ex being big on seperation of Church and State then went to the newspaper and I found out the next morning when I find my daugther page one news. Course it being October the story soon was reported across the nation.

Turns out all my daugther did was let a friend use her whiteout on where the other girls have written her name and that of friends on a railtie under a tree.

I find it easier to tell someone I'm an Ethical Humanist then the fact that I'm also Pegan. They can understand a religon that places Deed over Creed, then the fact that I worship the natural world.

I'm sujected to prayers everyday on the public bus or from friends at lunch. I don't speak out as here in Baltimore you can't get away from people that feel the need to witness everywhere. This in the City that brought us the nut case Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who christians claim took away your prayer in public schools. Guess all these christians is the punishment for her.

Well, to be fair though, there's a bit of pushing and shoving on both sides of this issue. There's certainly examples of people trying to put organized, school-led prayer into public education. But there are also examples of backlashes that do sometimes infringe on the right to prayer as well.

By most people's accounting, a group of students are well within their rights to organize their own prayer group as they wish, as long as they are not being directed by any school officials, or (maybe more importantly) public funds are not consumed by the process. I seem to recall Katie making a big deal a couple years ago about a local school that was being pressured to break up a student lead prayer tradition that took place before school hours. Clearly, that was well within the bounds of what most of us would agree is "protected speech", right?


I think part of the problem is that of simplification of the issue. The reality is that there's a very specific line between the imposition of religious ideas in a public school, and what is merely free speech. But the entire issue is generally simplified in most people's minds as "prayer in public school". It's not unreasonable to assume that some people (maybe even *many* people) will take that literally and believe that any prayer that occurs in a public school is therefore something to be fought against.


The problem with the argument that if the majority are ok with something then it should be allowed, is that quite often it generates an environment where the minority is under extreme pressure to conform. If the football coach leads a prayer before each game, can you *not* participate? Sure. Legally, you aren't required to, but if you don't that might be interpreted as a lack of school spirit, or a break from team spirit. You will have placed yourself in the position of outsider, and that will have consequences. It always does. So while we can say these things aren't mandatory, the effect is that they are still forced on the children via a number of different social pressures.


That's why the SC has repeated ruled that simply allowing kids to opt out of prayer doesn't work. The act of stepping out of the room during prayer costs them socially, and most will simply put up with prayer then don't agree with then suffer that cost. Which ultimately results in government indoctrination into religion, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing. If you are trying to raise your child with a secular belief system, but your child must conform to a religious one in order to function socially, then you're right to be free of religious indoctrination is being abridged.

I actually also extend this to things like the pledge. I see no reason to have a reference to a religious figure in what should be a secular pledge. It didn't used to be there. It's not needed now. I don't think anyone's going to be any more or less patriotic with or without that phrase. However, it *clearly* ties the state to religion, and goes further by stating that the state is "under God". That's a pretty hard pill to swallow if you don't believe in any form of divine being...

If it wasn't recited every day, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But it is, so let's remove the phrase. Dunno. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Of course they don't say that. And if you read what I wrote, I didn't say that they did. You're misunderstanding me. What *happens* is that someone hears about a group of kids at the local public school being allowed to pray before class, and go "wait! That's school payer!", and proceed to sign a petition to stop it.

Most people don't educate themselves on the particulars of a given issue. They make very quick value judgements, usually based on the wording of the first information they hear about it. So if they see a news report about how there's uproar about prayer in the local public school, most of them will join the bandwagon against it without ever once determining if the prayer is actually a violation of separation of church and state.


They never once say "You don't have a right to pray". Just as all those folks who sign petitions outlawing dihydogenoxide don't ever say "water should be illegal"... Get it?

If Christians want prayer in public schools, the churches can start paying taxes on the property they own in the communities where the public schools are. As long as I'm footing the bill, I'm only paying for the education. They can keep the prostelyzing to themselves.

Ad hoc fallacy. Nobody's taking religion away. Has the fact that prayer in public schools has been outlawed cut the number of religious people in this country? No. Everyone is perfectly free to pursue and teach their own religion in their own homes or churches.

What they're *not* free to do is pass laws telling me that I have to put my kids in school, that I have to pay for it on top of that, and then have some authority figure tell them that I'm evil and going to hell because I'm not whatever religion they are.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Christians (since that's who the original piece is defending) have been known to set people like me on fire, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for them to have a place to tell little kids that I deserve it.

As far as "guidance"... You got to raise your own children. Now you just let *me* worry about raising mine, okay? Things aren't really as bad as CBS/The Social Disaster **** Network make them out to be. The vast majority of us "kids" are just fine.

If they push through legislation doing just that, unhappy as it may make you, what can you do about it, much like they've been unhappy as hell about not having things their way for the past few decades. I'm not particularly defending Christians, but rather the good behaviors promoted by the religion. I also believe that sitting in church makes you into a Christian about like sitting in a garage makes you into a car.



I agree that you have to raise you own children. I do worry about how you raise yours, if I have to come in contact with them. Not you, specifically, but everyone. The only well mannered children I've seen in the past decade have been Christian of one flavor or another. So while I may not subscribe to the set of beliefs, I certainly believe those beliefs do far more good than harm. Personally, I admire the Muslim faith more than Christian, but it's not in the majority in this country, so that's moot. Gotta work with what you have.

thats quite a blanket statement there. If we're steryotyping, then inmy own personal findings, I've noticed that many children I grew up with who practiced the christian beliefs were quite bratty and more apt to quietly make other childrens lives miserable instead of out in the open where mom and dad could see. I noticed that children in the parish who were related to the pastor and jr pastor would lord it over other children in sunday school.

hey I could use that basis and say that all christian kids were awful when I was growing up, but I know as an adult kids are kids are kids and sometimes they're good and sometimes they're bad, no matter what, if any, faith they follow

When I was a server, working Sundays was the worst. The church crowd was absolutly horrible. And they didn't tip good, either. I guess they figured since they just gave 10% to God, they weren't going to give any more to you.

Note to the comprehension impaired: the above sentence in no way implies that all Christian children of one flavor or another are I have seen in the past decade are well behaved nor that I have seen all well behaved children of all denominations, merely that all of the well behaved children I have seen turned out to be Christian.


I don't think it's coincidence, but I was reporting an observation, not an opinion. That is all.

Not remotely. Going to Catholic school is not a requirement for being Catholic. No one is preventing you from going to Catholic school. If the Catholics decide to make you pay to attend their schools, that's between you and the Catholics, not between you and the government and the Catholics. Go ***** to the Vatican that your weekly tithe isn't getting you a free Catholic education if you want.

Really, there's nothing preventing you from using your public education except you choosing not to go (or send your children, as the case may be). You also typically pay for use of a public library, but it's not the government's problem if you decide to buy books at Barnes & Noble instead, nor should the government reimburse you your property taxes that go towards the library even if you feel B&N's book selection is better, its facilites are cleaner and safer and you like the coffee.

Edit: No, it's not a perfect analogy. Feel free to pick it apart rather than address the point

Edited, Wed Oct 19 23:32:02 2005 by Jophiel

hmmm
That would work....





Edited, Thu Oct 20 01:23:39 2005 by Kelvyquayo

All a school voucher system will do is take money away from the poorest of schools--the ones that aren't in very good shape and need improvement--and give it to the richest of schools--the ones that are already in good shape and don't need improvement. Because, of course, parents want their kids going to the BEST of schools, so instead of investing in the schools that need improvement, they'll up and take their voucher to a different school, thus giving the poorest of schools absolutely no way to improve, and overcrowding the richest of schools. It's lose-lose...lose...lose...lose...