Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Ok, I'll need you to send me all of your money that says "In God We Trust" , I'll keep it separated for you.Wow.What a vapid response. 1
rodheadlee Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Wow.What a vapid response.It was an attempt at humor, Sheesh and you call Nehor a hardliner. Good bye. Edited August 26, 2015 by rodheadlee
rongo Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Holy winner of the "you're not helping" award, Batman! Satanists protesting in favor of Planned Parenthood? The optics of that is like the KKK protesting in favor of the Mormon Church! And yes, I would hypothetically support the right of a marching band to sing a satanic hymn at a high school football game as much as the right of a high school marching band to perform a Christian hymn. One of these is far more likely, both to ever happen and to be widely supported by society at large --- especially in certain locations. 2
hagoth7 Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 But probably evolved from winter solstice celebrations and the honoring of evergreen trees as a symbol.Worthwhile followup questions might be, where did the symbolism of the evergreen first come into play, among whom, and why?For any who feel so inclined, I suggest a search of this discussion board for tannenbaum.
sethpayne Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Would you advocate a school allowing a marching band composed of students who had rehearsed on their own time away from school premises to bring their instruments to the football game and perform? Sure. As long as we also allow this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836205/Satanic-worship-group-seeks-hand-coloring-books-high-school-students-prompting-Florida-school-board-consider-banning-distribution-religious-materials.html Again,my personal preference is to keep Satanists from being involved in school functions. Even those who work really hard on their own time to develop a really awesome performance of the black mass on the 20 yard line. Edited August 26, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Sure. As long as we also allow this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836205/Satanic-worship-group-seeks-hand-coloring-books-high-school-students-prompting-Florida-school-board-consider-banning-distribution-religious-materials.html Again,my personal preference is to keep Satanists from being involved in school functions. Even those who work really hard on their own time to develop a really awesome performance of the black mass on the 20 yard line.And the last time I remember anything like that happening where I live is, oh, never. But as I said, if ever becomes a real threat, I'll be sure to call on you for help. Meanwhile, a far more imminent threat in a society of political correctness is the gradual eradication of any mention or expression of religious faith in the public sphere, giving a de facto privileged and favored status to irreligion or non-religion, thus moving the country away from being a truly secular state which is supposed to be neutral in matters of faith. In fact, it occurs to me that if I were C.S. Lewis's fictional devil Screwtape, I might advise the junior devil, Wormwood, to get the man so hysterical, frightened and outraged about so-called Satanists and their silly rituals that he gets distracted from the more real, imminent and effective threats such as the creeping eradication of -- and increasing hostility toward -- expression of religious faith in public institutions and discourse by people who are inclined to call evil good and good evil. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 And the last time I remember anything like that happening where I live is, oh, never. But as I said, if ever becomes a real threat, I'll be sure to call on you for help. Meanwhile, a far more imminent threat in a society of political correctness is the gradual eradication of any mention or expression of religious faith in the public sphere, giving a de facto privileged and favored status to irreligion or non-religion, thus moving the country away from being a truly secular state which is supposed to be neutral in matters of faith. In fact, it occurs to me that if I were C.S. Lewis's fictional devil Screwtape, I might advise the junior devil, Wormwood, to get the man so hysterical, frightened and outraged about so-called Satanists and their silly rituals that he gets distracted from the more real, imminent and effective threats such as the creeping eradication of -- and increasing hostility toward -- expression of religious faith in public institutions and discourse by people who are inclined to call evil good and good evil. Wow. You really shouldn't make assumptions about other's political views. You know what happens when you make assumptions. I've now given you two examples of Satanists exerting their right to freedom of expression. I could even mention that baphomet statue just put up on government property somewhere in the midwest. That makes three. That you want to ignore these realities simply because they complicate your argument .... isn't really all that surprising. Carry on! 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 It was an attempt at humor, Sheesh and you call Nehor a hardliner. Good bye.Sorry. My bad.
Analytics Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 It defied the intent of those who pursued the court order, which was to eliminate any religious expression from the public event. CFR that that was their intent. Regarding your hypothetical, it would be totally constitutional for a group of kids of their own accord to publically sing or play any song they wanted to in public.
Storm Rider Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 There always seems to be a muddying of the water when it comes to discussions of religion and the US. Separation of church and state is not the same as religion and state. To me it seems like activists judges have aided in making this distortortion worse. Keeping religion out of schools and the public square is twisting the meaning of the constitution. I agree with others on the Board that freedom includes religion being expressed and discussed openly - all religions. What is wrong is when a specific church takes over. If people want to have prayer in school - great - but all religions get to participate. If someone wants to play a religious tune - I don't see any problem with it. Those pseudo secularists who attempt to go beyond a separation of church and state to include all religions distort what the constitution intends/intended. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) If you have to use the power of the state to enforce your religion. What happens when the state no longer enforces your religion, but another one? Edited August 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint 1
provoman Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Teancum seems so enamored with this phrase "secular Constitution" that I decided I should check into it to see if there is something there that I didn't know before. I found this in a Wikipedia entry for secular state: Note the phrase "supporting neither religion nor irreligion." As I mentioned earlier, the practice of forbidding any expression of religion in public has the de facto effect of supporting "irreligion," which, theoretically, is also disallowed in a secular state or under a secular constitution. Therefore, public policy that has the effect of favoring irreligion is not a true secular state, because such a state is supposed to be neutral in such matters. You do not seems to want to grasp or want understand very basic concepts - public forum and the relation of State and Religions. The government cannot engage in activity that shows preference for one religion over another. There is no practice of "forbidding any expression of religion in public". You seem wont to distort the issues when it comes to religion. Your distortions amount too "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." As for your hypothetical, I will not attempt to address. I will not attempt to address it because the distortions you have made apparent in this thread. Perhaps, You, should look of the court ruling or similar ruling and learn how courts deal with Prayer in schools and other apparent State sponsorship of religion. I suggest the following, Lee v. Weisman; Religious Freedom in Schools FAQ 1
Analytics Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 There always seems to be a muddying of the water when it comes to discussions of religion and the US. Separation of church and state is not the same as religion and state. To me it seems like activists judges have aided in making this distortortion worse. Keeping religion out of schools and the public square is twisting the meaning of the constitution. I agree with others on the Board that freedom includes religion being expressed and discussed openly - all religions. What is wrong is when a specific church takes over. If people want to have prayer in school - great - but all religions get to participate. If someone wants to play a religious tune - I don't see any problem with it. Those pseudo secularists who attempt to go beyond a separation of church and state to include all religions distort what the constitution intends/intended. So in your view, the government should promote "religion" in general, as long as it isn't endorsing a specific church? Atheists are frequently told that atheism is a religion too. If that's the case, how do you envision the government promoting the religion of the theists without simultaneously attacking the religion of the atheists? "Keeping religion out" of the schools and public places can mean two things: either than the state shouldn't sponsor religious expression (like the actual case referred to in the OP), or that people should be forbidden from religious expression in public places (like the straw man the OP attacks). The former is a winning position that many people take. The latter is a losing position that few people take.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 If one thing calls for Christian hymns it is young men beating the crap out of each other over an inflated pigskin. People do worship at the Church of the NFL.
The Nehor Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 People do worship at the Church of the NFL. I prefer worshipping my bank account. It is less likely to get stomped on and destroy my faith.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I prefer worshipping my bank account. It is less likely to get stomped on and destroy my faith.If I worshipped my bank account I'd be an avowed atheist because it doesn't exist.
The Nehor Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 If I worshipped my bank account I'd be an avowed atheist because it doesn't exist.Just have faith and maybe it will one day appear.
rpn Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 DROP Your title is wrong--- there was no court order preventing the crowd from singing the hymn. If the band members individually had decided to repair to the stands and individually played it, that would not have violated the order either. The problem in that town has been that the school scheduled and involved only Christian teachings. The court said no. It was the school board itself that decided that the band playing a religious song might be within the realm of what the court was saying was not okay (and you have to admit that culturally, "How Great Thou Art" is not heard often in the high school repertoire). I think it was great that the people who attended sang (though I noted that the person who started it didn't seem to be aware of anything but its chorus)., and I hope they do again. I agree that while it may be sung primarily by Christians, its words make no such distinction. But I'm also glad that the school district understands that it cannot be teaching and sponsoring religious belief 1
longview Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Teancum seems so enamored with this phrase "secular Constitution" that I decided I should check into it to see if there is something there that I didn't know before. I found this in a Wikipedia entry for secular state: Note the phrase "supporting neither religion nor irreligion." As I mentioned earlier, the practice of forbidding any expression of religion in public has the de facto effect of supporting "irreligion," which, theoretically, is also disallowed in a secular state or under a secular constitution. Therefore, public policy that has the effect of favoring irreligion is not a true secular state, because such a state is supposed to be neutral in such matters.What we SERIOUSLY need is the "separation of schools and state." Examples of abuses reported in the news media within the last several years:1- attacks on children for wearing religious accouterments, such as cross on necklace, as part of their normal daily dress.2- intolerance for children reading their copy of the Bible on their own during lunch break, etc.3- too many schools are engaged in indoctrinating elementary aged students in the practice of homosexual dating by having them pair off and "pretend" to be living the lifestyle and various other exercises.4- schools are seemingly favoring the teaching and rituals of Islamic literature, observances, recitations, and wearing hijab, chador, etc, but at the same time rooting out any Christian expressions, even in history or literature classes.There are thousands of incidents like above and more other kinds. The so-called "social engineers" have way too much power and control of public schools. The only way parents can protect against these kinds of abuses currently is to enroll in religious schools or to home school. They are paying double for taxes for the local district plus their own costs. What would be MORE fair is for the government to provide vouchers (with NO strings attached) to families . . . to decide whichever schools they want their children to attend . . . public or private . . . religious or otherwise . . . technical or artistic . . . whatever they CHOOSE . . . separation of church and state is NOT an issue, it is the parents that are choosing . . . NOT the state . . . 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 reads: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Walden Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Wouldn't bother me. Should it? Do you know what Allah means in Arabic? It means God. Suppose several of the students from the high school, perhaps including some members of the marching band, got together on their own time off school premises and rehearsed the hymn, then brought their instruments to the game and, at a specific time, performed the hymn. Would this have been acceptable? Why or why not? If the attendees at a game were allowed to bring their own instruments, then they could likely play what they want. Just like the attendees at the game sang the Christian hymn that they wanted to sing. When it comes to separation of church and state, you do see the difference in a school-sponsored group like the school band, which is funded by the state-administered school and who represents the school at these types of events, and a group of like-minded citizens, right?
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 If you have to use the power of the state to enforce your religion. What happens when the state no longer enforces your religion, but another one? Like secular humanism? Something to remember about this event. The parents and students spontaneously decided to sing that hymn. The expression was neither school sponsored or led. The First Amendment of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) states: 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. It seems to me that the parents and students exercised their freedom of speech and freedom of peaceably assembling without needing the school (Government) to establish a religion or religious practices.
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Back in the 1970s when my High School Chorus director received complaints about religious songs during our Christmas/Holiday concert she purchased the same tunes in Latin for the next year. There were no more complaints. Heh. In my opinion performing great classics during the holidays is not establishment of religion when taught as music literature and performance art. Just as the Bible studied as literature is permissible in school settings. Neither establish religion.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Like secular humanism? Something to remember about this event. The parents and students spontaneously decided to sing that hymn. The expression was neither school sponsored or led. The First Amendment of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) states: 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. It seems to me that the parents and students exercised their freedom of speech and freedom of peaceably assembling without needing the school (Government) to establish a religion or religious practices.Non one's arguing that the parents were breaking the law by singing a religious song. A little weird, but not illegal. They weren't prohibited from singing so doing it was not "defying" any kind of court order. What we are saying is that it is not proper for the school to encourage or promote religious practice. I appreciate that schools are prohibited from forcing religious beliefs or practices on my kids. 1
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Non one's arguing that the parents were breaking the law by singing a religious song. A little weird, but not illegal. They weren't prohibited from singing so doing it was not "defying" any kind of court order. What we are saying is that it is not proper for the school to encourage or promote religious practice. I appreciate that schools are prohibited from forcing religious beliefs or practices on my kids. Non one's arguing that the parents were breaking the law by singing a religious song. A little weird, but not illegal. They weren't prohibited from singing so doing it was not "defying" any kind of court order. What we are saying is that it is not proper for the school to encourage or promote religious practice. I appreciate that schools are prohibited from forcing religious beliefs or practices on my kids. Playing a traditional Swedish melody (what the tune of How Great Thou Art is based on) is not promoting religious practice.
Recommended Posts