That would be directly attacking my religion. Not just making a statement like "In God we trust" or a freaking prayer.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
So because some government bureaucrat back in the day decided to endorse the statement "in god we trust" it's okay? As if that gives it more value than, oh, I don't know, trusting in God regardless of whatever the authorities tell you?
My point is, unless they allow "God is dead" or "Allah is great" alongside whatever Christian statement is made, it is not speaking for everyone, which is precisely why this shit is banned in schools.
Allowing prayer in schools would be okay, if they spent billions of dollars to give every religion known to man their own private area where they will not be harassed or beat up by others.
My point is, unless they allow "God is dead" or "Allah is great" alongside whatever Christian statement is made, it is not speaking for everyone, which is precisely why this shit is banned in schools.
Allowing prayer in schools would be okay, if they spent billions of dollars to give every religion known to man their own private area where they will not be harassed or beat up by others.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-28 23:50:24)
There weren't any problems before 1963.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
lol
I'm glad pre-1963 is such a wonderful paradise you'd like us to return to, then
Enjoy your polio
Enjoy your polio
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-28 23:58:06)
Hey smartass, do you think I'm referring to the medical field of 1963 in a thread discussion religion and tolerance?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
On one hand, who cares? Its just a banner.
On the other, lolconstitution.
On the other, lolconstitution.
noice 
It's the same thing. You did not hear about shit "back in the day" because no one had a handheld digital phone camera and there was no "news". Of course there were publications, but any information you received would be rendered late or obsolete. The 24 hour news cycle and internet is the only reason you've even been exposed to this story.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Hey smartass, do you think I'm referring to the medical field of 1963 in a thread discussion religion and tolerance?
I was not being a smartass.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-29 00:34:29)
shiftys very unamerican amirite. some people use the constitution if it fits their argument aka shiftyKuSTaV wrote:
On one hand, who cares? Its just a banner.
On the other, lolconstitution.
Right to bear arms.Cybargs wrote:
shiftys very unamerican amirite. some people use the constitution if it fits their argument aka shiftyKuSTaV wrote:
On one hand, who cares? Its just a banner.
On the other, lolconstitution.
She shouldn't have kept bugging the school about it. The people harrassing her shouldn't be doing that.
I don't see why having a banner depicting religious prayer should just be accepted as the status quo. Religion is already shoved down people's throats enough, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a public school to be secular as it is required to be. People ask "what's the harm" - well it all comes down to attitude doesn't it. That religion is the norm. That religion can not be questioned. That secularism isn't all that important when it's just a teensy tiny little prayer here and there. Why should that be the case? Especially when as far as I can tell prayer is a personal thing.
Miss Ahlquist is learning the hard way what it means to rock the boat. That kind of proves my point; anyone taking a stand against the perceived status quo as far as religion is concerned becomes a social pariah - even if they're right. For her own sake it probably would have been better if she kept her mouth shut but let's not forget that she's perfectly within her right to object and again - she's right. What's not excusable is harassing her simply because the sore looser brigade didn't understand the concept of secularism.
Miss Ahlquist is learning the hard way what it means to rock the boat. That kind of proves my point; anyone taking a stand against the perceived status quo as far as religion is concerned becomes a social pariah - even if they're right. For her own sake it probably would have been better if she kept her mouth shut but let's not forget that she's perfectly within her right to object and again - she's right. What's not excusable is harassing her simply because the sore looser brigade didn't understand the concept of secularism.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Its unconstitutional, isn't that the point?RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, I don't get why people get so pissed off about things that are not intended to be offensive or exclusionary.Macbeth wrote:
How is prayer banner is so terrible you must make this big of a deal about it? I'm pretty vehemently opposed to religion and am extremely critical of many Christian ideals. Despite that I'm not at all bothered by religious symbols. Religious people talking to me doesn't bother me either. Maybe I'm strange.
So could anyone here convince me that the little kid wasn't totally asking for it?
Fuck Israel
Stop being so sensitive. The people that bitch about stuff like this are even worse than the religious people themselves. You're drawing attention to shit the rest of us happily ignore. Who cares if there's a prayer on a banner? It isn't doing anyone any harm. Would I protest if they tried putting up a new one? Sure. But your argument is equivalent to wanting to force churches to remove the cross from their steeple because they you find it offensive. You're the one with the problem, not them. Get over it.Ty wrote:
I don't see why having a banner depicting religious prayer should just be accepted as the status quo. Religion is already shoved down people's throats enough, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a public school to be secular as it is required to be. People ask "what's the harm" - well it all comes down to attitude doesn't it. That religion is the norm. That religion can not be questioned. That secularism isn't all that important when it's just a teensy tiny little prayer here and there. Why should that be the case? Especially when as far as I can tell prayer is a personal thing.
Miss Ahlquist is learning the hard way what it means to rock the boat. That kind of proves my point; anyone taking a stand against the perceived status quo as far as religion is concerned becomes a social pariah - even if they're right. For her own sake it probably would have been better if she kept her mouth shut but let's not forget that she's perfectly within her right to object and again - she's right. What's not excusable is harassing her simply because the sore looser brigade didn't understand the concept of secularism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Constitution n tingJay wrote:
Stop being so sensitive. The people that bitch about stuff like this are even worse than the religious people themselves. You're drawing attention to shit the rest of us happily ignore. Who cares if there's a prayer on a banner? It isn't doing anyone any harm. Would I protest if they tried putting up a new one? Sure. But your argument is equivalent to wanting to force churches to remove the cross from their steeple because they you find it offensive. You're the one with the problem, not them. Get over it.Ty wrote:
I don't see why having a banner depicting religious prayer should just be accepted as the status quo. Religion is already shoved down people's throats enough, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a public school to be secular as it is required to be. People ask "what's the harm" - well it all comes down to attitude doesn't it. That religion is the norm. That religion can not be questioned. That secularism isn't all that important when it's just a teensy tiny little prayer here and there. Why should that be the case? Especially when as far as I can tell prayer is a personal thing.
Miss Ahlquist is learning the hard way what it means to rock the boat. That kind of proves my point; anyone taking a stand against the perceived status quo as far as religion is concerned becomes a social pariah - even if they're right. For her own sake it probably would have been better if she kept her mouth shut but let's not forget that she's perfectly within her right to object and again - she's right. What's not excusable is harassing her simply because the sore looser brigade didn't understand the concept of secularism.
This is offensive?
Holy fuck. I'd be happy if my kids read that every day, and I myself want nothing to do with religion in my personal life.
Holy fuck. I'd be happy if my kids read that every day, and I myself want nothing to do with religion in my personal life.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Is she one of those types that preaches no sex till marriage but still had kids out of wedlock?eleven bravo wrote:
she was asian. very fuckable but the second a bitch starts talking about jesus my wee wee goes limp
That's always priceless.
On the one hand, I'm not offended by this sort of thing.Jay wrote:
This is offensive?
Holy fuck. I'd be happy if my kids read that every day, and I myself want nothing to do with religion in my personal life.
On the other, the girl was legally within her rights to make a big deal over it.
She'll get a lot of shit for it, which is somewhat understandable, but then again, it's just a banner.
In the same way that the banner doesn't offend me, my faith would not be affected by the presence or lack of a banner if I was Christian.
Overall, it's a non-issue that both sides make an issue out of.
i find all things religious offensive. god damn it
Tu Stultus Es
Make sure to smile when you lose. That'll get you ahead if you don't care. e: Also -Jay wrote:
This is offensive?
Holy fuck. I'd be happy if my kids read that every day, and I myself want nothing to do with religion in my personal life.
I believe in a heavenly mother. Not a father. As in, the atheist motherland of socialism.
Instead of pulling it down, they should have just put a big black bar over "Our Heavenly Father" that reads "Censored."
It's not a matter of being sensitive. Again you use this old tired argument "what harm is it doing" and to be perfectly honest I don't see a banner being all that harmful in itself. At my school, (also a public school,) we sang hymns and had the Lord's Prayer at assembly. I didn't even think to object then despite being non-religious my entire life and would quite happily ignore it as I always have done now. But the point remains that religion is just given this unobjectionable status that when someone does object to it for whatever reason, (and I'm not saying I agree with Miss Ahlquist I'm simply arguing that she was within her right to object,) they are punished for it. Because "what harm is it doing?" There's the answer right there though isn't it? The harm it's doing is making it such a norm so that whenever someone justifiably objects to religion they are treated with open hostility - or ignored as this girl was until she took further action.Jay wrote:
Stop being so sensitive. The people that bitch about stuff like this are even worse than the religious people themselves. You're drawing attention to shit the rest of us happily ignore. Who cares if there's a prayer on a banner? It isn't doing anyone any harm. Would I protest if they tried putting up a new one? Sure. But your argument is equivalent to wanting to force churches to remove the cross from their steeple because they you find it offensive. You're the one with the problem, not them. Get over it.Ty wrote:
I don't see why having a banner depicting religious prayer should just be accepted as the status quo. Religion is already shoved down people's throats enough, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a public school to be secular as it is required to be. People ask "what's the harm" - well it all comes down to attitude doesn't it. That religion is the norm. That religion can not be questioned. That secularism isn't all that important when it's just a teensy tiny little prayer here and there. Why should that be the case? Especially when as far as I can tell prayer is a personal thing.
Miss Ahlquist is learning the hard way what it means to rock the boat. That kind of proves my point; anyone taking a stand against the perceived status quo as far as religion is concerned becomes a social pariah - even if they're right. For her own sake it probably would have been better if she kept her mouth shut but let's not forget that she's perfectly within her right to object and again - she's right. What's not excusable is harassing her simply because the sore looser brigade didn't understand the concept of secularism.
I think Turquoise summed it up best anyway.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
>follow religion that teaches compassion and understanding and turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor
>bully a girl because she doesn't like your religion
>hypocrite
pick 3
>bully a girl because she doesn't like your religion
>hypocrite
pick 3
Excellent point about the 24/h news cycle.Spearhead wrote:
It's the same thing. You did not hear about shit "back in the day" because no one had a handheld digital phone camera and there was no "news". Of course there were publications, but any information you received would be rendered late or obsolete. The 24 hour news cycle and internet is the only reason you've even been exposed to this story.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Hey smartass, do you think I'm referring to the medical field of 1963 in a thread discussion religion and tolerance?
I was not being a smartass.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.