Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 46 (9216 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,623 Year: 945/6,935 Month: 226/719 Week: 14/204 Day: 14/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 256 (211994)
05-27-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Monk
05-27-2005 8:30 PM


I'm no lawyer. But I do believe that a captive audience has the right not to have to sit through, and by extension, participate in, even the briefest religious ritual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 8:30 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 8:58 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 160 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 152 of 256 (212000)
05-27-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 8:43 PM


But I do believe that a captive audience has the right not to have to sit through, and by extension, participate in, even the briefest religious ritual.
I wouldn't call a Celine Dion song a religious ritual and the student speakers do have the right to voice their religious views at this event.
I don't know whether the audience would be considered "captive". Attending the graduation ceremony is not mandatory towards receiving a diploma, so if students were informed ahead of time that it was possible a speaker or singer might say "God" in their discourse, then those students have the freedom not to attend.
This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 12:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 8:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by EZscience, posted 05-27-2005 9:19 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 9:39 PM Monk has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5472 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 153 of 256 (212004)
05-27-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Monk
05-27-2005 8:58 PM


References to religion
It is not any reference to any religion per se, Christian or Islamic, that is in any way offensive, it is any *implicit* inference that we need all necessarily share the same religious outlook. That is always a valid fear whenever religous elements gain political influence.
I happen to greatly enjoy blues and gospell music and admire the inspiration these musicians sometimes find in their religious beliefs. It doesn't offend me to hear them sing of God and Jesus etc. even though certain aspects of Christianity sincerely offend me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 8:58 PM Monk has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 256 (212009)
05-27-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Monk
05-27-2005 8:58 PM


I wouldn't call a Celine Deion song a religious ritual
Oh? Singing religious songs isn't a typical feature of Christian worship services?
and the student speakers do have the right to voice their religious views at this event.
That's not what was voiced.
Attending the graduation ceremony is not mandatory towards receiving a diploma, so if students were informed ahead of time that it was possible a speaker or singer might say "God" in their discourse, then those students have the freedom not to attend.
Were they warned that religious songs would be sung?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 8:58 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 9:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 256 (212011)
05-27-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 9:39 PM


I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Obviously this graduation ceremony decision derives from a considerable body of precident disallowing religious speech at official public school events, beyond the barest of personal religious assertions (i.e. "I am a Christian".)
From what precident did the anti-Pagan decision stem? That's the danger of the Republicans - while claiming to be the party of tradition and values, there's absolutely no tradition or value they won't abandon the second that it necessitates the inconvinient or undesired action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 9:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Monk, posted 05-28-2005 1:53 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 5:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 156 of 256 (212053)
05-28-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 9:52 PM


I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Obviously this graduation ceremony decision derives from a considerable body of precident disallowing religious speech at official public school events, beyond the barest of personal religious assertions (i.e. "I am a Christian".)
Wrong! It is NOT disallowed. The school board DOES allow a student speaker the right to voice their religious views during this event.
quote:
The lawsuit contended that, in banning Ashby's song, Windsor High School had violated clear guidelines based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution -- guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education that prohibit censorship of a student graduation speaker's personal religious viewpoint.
Message 132

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 9:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:02 AM Monk has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6137 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 256 (212074)
05-28-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Monk
05-27-2005 7:32 PM


In my last post I said I agreed with the parents of the Wiccans. Can't you read?
Yes I can read. I guess the real question is if you can write what you mean. In direct reply to Crash's post you offered what you stated was a counterexample of people trying to wipe out religion. That suggests you thought crash's citation was as flippant or serious as your own... unless you were simply talking for the sake of making noise.
When I replied to you that the comparison was not equivalent, you stated that on a "superficial" level you agreed with the parents, BUT you "wondered" why they sent their kid to a Catholic school.
In English that means that you only agree with the parents minimally and you have some deeper questions about their actions/motivations. You even said something else must be going on there. I'm still struggling to figure out what "else" could have been involved that would EVER allow a judge to tell parents what religion they can teach their children.
You have not once said that you agree with Crash that his was an example of a judge trying to support a singular theistic doctrine.
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?
I do disagree with the ruling, but it is a freedom of speech issue and not a freedom of religion issue. No one was clipping her ability to be whatever she chose to be or practice what she wanted to. The only thing she was being stopped from doing was making a "speech" in public, because someone thought others might be offended,
Notice that is 100% different than saying she couldn't ever sing, even in private, because she had to be protected from Celion Dion's religious beliefs which might make her a more confused, or less moral person.
I would say that while cowardly, at least the "dion" decision had a suggestion of purpose or reason. Can you find any defensible argument at all for the other ruling?
Read my post once in awhile, would you?
I have. Why don't you cite where you plainly came out in support of Crash's post, without a lot of caveating. And while you're at it you can answer this: if you did agree with Crash, why did you feel the need to reply to him in a manner that suggested you were disagreeing and at the same time offer such an errant counterexample?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 7:32 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Monk, posted 05-28-2005 11:28 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6137 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 158 of 256 (212075)
05-28-2005 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 9:52 PM


While I agree there is simply no comparison between Monk's citation and your own, I do believe the case he cited was a mistake.
I do understand that there is at least some precedent for not allowing religious speech to go on at public school functions, but don't you agree that this went a little far? I mean first of all it was just a song, and second of all it was a Pop song. Celine Dion is NOT an evangelist or a gospel singer.
I also have to agree with Monk, though he seems to miss this undercuts his entire argument, that singing songs with religious lyrics in them is not tantamount to preaching one's religion to people. Does the mention of religion or spiritual belief automatically mean proselytization? And should people really not have the ability to tolerate such minimal public behavior?
Again, remember I am not trying to suggest this makes his case equivalent to the one you mentioned at all. Just that it was wrong on its own merits (free speech).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 9:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:05 AM Silent H has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18706
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 159 of 256 (212085)
05-28-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 8:14 AM


well hey now...we gotta keep those pesky pagans in check!
The A.C.L.U. has the case now, so the judge will probably get overturned. It appears that his logic was that the Wiccan beliefs would clash with and confuse the boys Catholic school upbringing.
Nature worship is basically harmless. Its just not that bright! Maybe we need to filibuster it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 8:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:07 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 171 by nator, posted 05-28-2005 1:10 PM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18706
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 160 of 256 (212086)
05-28-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
05-27-2005 8:43 PM


frog writes:
I'm no lawyer. But I do believe that a captive audience has the right not to have to sit through, and by extension, participate in, even the briefest religious ritual.
What about students that are "forced" to read Harry Potter books in class?
What about being forced to sit through a gay pride assembly?
If it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs, you CAN yank your child out of it. The schools need to get taken to court until they quit trying to muddy everything up in the "name" of diversity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2005 8:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:06 AM Phat has replied
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 10:39 AM Phat has replied
 Message 168 by Morte, posted 05-28-2005 11:35 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 172 by nator, posted 05-28-2005 1:13 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 173 by jar, posted 05-28-2005 1:50 PM Phat has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 256 (212092)
05-28-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Monk
05-28-2005 1:53 AM


The school board DOES allow a student speaker the right to voice their religious views during this event.
This wasn't voicing a view, however. This was worship, prohibited by the First and Fourteenth amendments, as we've established.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Monk, posted 05-28-2005 1:53 AM Monk has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 256 (212093)
05-28-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Silent H
05-28-2005 5:54 AM


I do understand that there is at least some precedent for not allowing religious speech to go on at public school functions, but don't you agree that this went a little far? I mean first of all it was just a song, and second of all it was a Pop song.
We don't know what the content of the song was. If a classmate speaker stood up at graduation and said "now, let's all join in singing 'Rock of Ages'", I would find that unconstitutional. So too would I find it unconstitutional if she offered a three-minute prayer in lieu of a speech; so too do I find it unconstitutional to offer a three-minute religious song.
And should people really not have the ability to tolerate such minimal public behavior?
Should they have to, if that behavior is unconstitutional?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 5:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 10:50 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 256 (212094)
05-28-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Phat
05-28-2005 9:22 AM


If it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs, you CAN yank your child out of it.
Indeed. So they're not a captive audience, now are they? School curricula are generally avaliable for inspection in advance. Was the graduation ceremony, and the woman's song performance, avaliable for the same prior inspection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:22 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 164 of 256 (212095)
05-28-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Phat
05-28-2005 9:15 AM


Nature worship is basically harmless. Its just not that bright!
I don't see how it's in the least different than book worship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:15 AM Phat has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6137 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 165 of 256 (212103)
05-28-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Phat
05-28-2005 9:22 AM


I'm unaware of Harry Potter being read in classrooms, but what does that have to do with religion? There is no connection between it and any actual existing belief system.
I was also unaware that kids are actually forced to sit through gay pride assemblies. Do you actually know of these kinds of things?
The schools need to get taken to court until they quit trying to muddy everything up in the "name" of diversity!
I do hope you are joking. I kind of assume you are.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:22 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:50 PM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025