Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Well, it seems that if she had decided to express her religious views, as other students did, then that would have been OK per guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education.Those guidelines prohibit censorship of a student speaker's personal religious viewpoint during the graduation ceremony.But sing a song, oooh my, we can't have that. I imagine there are many things we colonials do that appears quite odd when viewed from your side of the pond.

hehehehe, good point

quote:

---

The gov't isn't sponsoring it. Others were allowed to voice their religous beliefs at the same ceremony.

---

Oh, well that's not right.

quote:

---

I've been waiting for you to list why Dobson's is worse than Kennedy. Are you going to do that anytime soon?

---

I already did way back in message #87 of this thread, and I also listed the goals and views of the FRC in the old thread where I first brought it up.Maybe you missed it. Here are Dobson's lobbying goals for the Family Research Council, and exactly why it would be terrible for him to choose the next SCOTUS justice:

quote:

---

If the parents are that concerned with the religious education of their son, then why are they sending him to Catholic school?

---

Because Catholic schools provide a superior education than public school?There are lots of non-catholics who send their kids to Cathilic school.

Many people who are not Catholic and even atheist send their children to Catholic school - the religious content in most Catholic schools is minimal and some parents may agree with the more disciplinarian approach to education. I know three or four Episcopilians (sp?) that went to Catholic school.And as far as government-sponsored forums, like public airwaves and, yes, high school commencements, the government is free to apply whatever arbitrary standards it chooses. Women are free to walk around in public without their tops on, but let a nipple make a two-second appearance on the airwaves, and that's a million-dollar fine from the FCC. Similarly, at a commencement, do you really think that a commencement speech that consisted of many repetitions of the word 'fuck' would be allowed? It's not exactly an example of the highest level of discourse (then again, neither is Celine Dion), but any difference between the profanity-laden speech and the song is essentially arbitrary.That being said, the government does have the responsibility not to use these admittedly arbitrary standards not to silence serious viewpoints - it should not be in the business of taking programs critical of the government off the air. I will admit tacitly that Christian viewpoints in general are being mostly excluded from schools. I do not think that is a problem - free speech laws were designed to protect minority viewpoints and Christianity is in no way a minority viewpoint.However, you have every right in the world to lobby against encroaching secularism in schools. But to take the example of a song at a commencement as an example of this secularism is silly. Commencements are as sanitized as the school board can get them. Christians delegitimize their own arguments by using these types of things - like no Christmas songs at holiday pageants. Who really cares if you don't hear 'Silent Night' for the umpteenth million time? For the same reason that not many people really care if the FCC is encroaching on Howard Stern's 'free speech' rights, not many people really care if Celine Dion (who gets too much airplay as it is) or Silent Night is not sung in public schools. All I'm saying is - pick your battles. Wait until schools do something like cancel extracurricular prayer circles. Until then, you're just the boy who cried 'wolf.'

I think you are wrong. Many people do care about traditions they have held their whole life. They see them eroding away. Any one event in itself may seem trivial, but to those who percieve a continual degradation, it isn't. Again, either it's correct or it isn't. Perhaps I could have picked an article that was more egregious, but that one caught my attention so I used it. Regardless how trivial it seems, I still do not understand why some students were allowed to voice their religous beliefs and yet a Celine Deion song is prohibited. Not that I'm a fan mind you, it just doesn't make sense to me.

I have known people of different faiths, and even hands down atheists who have sent their kids to Catholic schools. In some areas they have the best facilities and teachers.In any case what does that have to do with whether a parent can be told what religion they can teach their child at home by the gov't? If you believe this is right, do you then believe parents should be barred from discussing creationism at home because that will "confuse" children who will be taught evolution? It's the same thing. I think stopping the kid from singing was going to far and not useful, Thus I disagreed with both situations presented.But there is a huge difference between the two cases. One is the institution of theocratic leanings by the gov't as it allowed direct control of private family matters, and the other was an overstepping of officials trying to be pc or protective (not get sued) by making sure people might not get offended at a public event.You presented the latter case as some sort of anti-religious action. That is false on its face. Other religious people could also have been offended at that public event. And it did not deny anyone their ability to remain religious or practice their religion, unless you equate singing celine dion songs at public school events as part of necessary Xian religious practice?Why can't you just admit that crash's post did show a very troubling example of a public official attempting to step on the practice and teaching of another religion?This message has been edited by holmes, 05-27-2005 05:21 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Is this what the Christian/NeoCon right mean when they complain about 'activist judges'?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

I'm sorry, did I miss something in your story? I read it and I didn't see where the students right to private freedom of worship was infringed; what I did see was the rights of students not to have to sit through a religious worship that they didn't chose to attend.Nobody has the right to force others to waste their time in worship of somebody else's God, right? Or maybe that's not a right you theocrats recognize.

In my last post I said I agreed with the parents of the Wiccans. Can't you read? Here you seem to argue in support of the judges ruling, but in the same post you said you disagreed with the decision, which is it? Read my post once in awhile, would you?This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 12:40 AM

Does singing a song force the listener to worship someone else's God? Is that what you atheist believe?Do you support the judges decision to allow only the spoken profession of religious faith at the ceremony and not a song that happens to mention God?Shouldn't both be either banned or both allowed?

I see where you could use it as a counter point but to me it seemed fairly innocuous compared to Crash's example. I am not sufficiently versed in the law to answer your first question. As to the second, it wasn't clear from the article that the student asked for the ACLU's help. If she had they might have defended her. I don't think the ACLU typically gets involved in these cases unless someone asks for help.{fixed spelling}This message has been edited by bob_gray, 05-27-2005 07:54 PM

No, not in the least. I genuinely believe that a large and powerful segment of society believes that Christianity is the only allowed and mandatory religion, and that they've gained enough political power to put that belief into limited, local practice.Nothing cynical about it. Judges are telling parents what religion they can pass on to their children. Legislatures are turning the precepts of the Bible into the laws that everyone has to follow. I question the judgement of anyone who doesn't see the theocratic tendancies in that. At any venue where persons attend voluntarily, certainly.

Can't you worship God by simple attendance and attention? My church told me I could. Do you disagree? How come you don't see a difference between "I believe in God" and "let's all worship our God"?

So then you agree with the court decision