So back to the topic at hand and not whatever you dudes are arguing about now with hospitals.
But, would she be upset if the school had agreed and amended the prayer to be more of a "hey be nice to each other" and remove the amen and "to my holy father" or whatever it said?
That seems like a perfect compromise.
If they had gotten rid of the "heavenly father" and "amen" sections, and ceased calling it a prayer, I don't think there would be anything in there anyone could object to.
Exactly.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Why the fuck did they not do this? It didn't cheapen the message, it made it stronger. Now they'll probably have to remove it completely.
Heck, look at the blowback when someone suggested there was something wrong with it. The school board was a bit wishy washy on it but the community wasn't going to stand for anything unless they were forced to. And courts don't play the "snip out the bad parts" game.
@Bowen -> surely you understand that the discussion of the Feds now forcing religiously run non-churchs to use fair employment practices is germane to the thread?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
For those of us, like me that picked up on the NPR story of this a week ago, we already knew it. This is exactly why I've argued pretty hard in here that the Catholics are in the wrong, because there isn't even internal consensus on this issue, so why should we give a shit? Someday they'll get a new pope with a new focus and this issue will completely die only to be resurrected by another later pope that wants to go back to conservative principles. The whole refusal to continue doing what they are doing is bullshit, and they have no legal right exempt their charitable organizations that are not actual churches from the rules that govern other such organizations. These rules apply to all these charitable organizations equally as a basic standard and not one argument yet revealed in this thread takes that into account. Catholics working for other employers get these same benefits, so if they are working at the Church of Satan's food kitchen they can't be forced to drink the unholy water or to commit sodomy with a goatvirgin...
I yearn for the day when being Catholic is roughly as popular as worshiping Zeus is now.
Keep yearning; won't happen in your lifetime, barring lol singularity.
I was raised Catholic, and even though I broke those chains and found my own way, you bet your ass they have a fairly well entrenched base of faithful, and most people who think of themselves as Catholic and will join behind a Catholic cause go to mass exactly twice a year, so it isn't even really a big commitment to remain a member of the flock.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
pfft
Zeus is awesome.
You know what? When I was in school we started every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance and then a moment of silence. And I used that moment of silence to say my morning prayer to myself. In my head. I said my blessings over my lunch and that was pretty much it. I never bothered anybody with it, I didn't sing the Shema out loud and confuse the other kids in class. I kept it to myself.
As far as the moment of silence goes? It really does not hurt anything. Religious and/or spiritual kids will use it to pray, or not. Non-religious kids will use it to work out math problems, or not. But, I feel that if there is a moment of silence than it's just polite to keep your trap shut during it. You might not be praying or being introspective, but that doesn't mean that others around you aren't. I see it more as a mutual respect thing, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be the minority opinion on that.
You know what? When I was in school we started every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance and then a moment of silence. And I used that moment of silence to say my morning prayer to myself. In my head. I said my blessings over my lunch and that was pretty much it. I never bothered anybody with it, I didn't sing the Shema out loud and confuse the other kids in class. I kept it to myself.
As far as the moment of silence goes? It really does not hurt anything. Religious and/or spiritual kids will use it to pray, or not. Non-religious kids will use it to work out math problems, or not. But, I feel that if there is a moment of silence than it's just polite to keep your trap shut during it. You might not be praying or being introspective, but that doesn't mean that others around you aren't. I see it more as a mutual respect thing, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be the minority opinion on that.
Again, agreeing with this idea.
It isn't moments of silence after the pledge that are the problem, it's actual prayer sessions sponsored by the state.
I'm a Christian, and I think before people start yammering on about "Guvmint came and took mah baby jesus" they should think, Would I want another religion's prayer being said at this school? I'm willing to bet 9/10 times the answer to that question is no.
Also, Odin's where it's at.
(I think I took this off PA sometime in the recent past, take credit if it's yours as I forget who t'was)
Religion doesn't belong in the classroom, it's the parent's jobs to raise their kids religious if they want. It's the government's job to teach them things that help them get jobs.
You can't have a sponsored/sanctioned prayer because it excludes kids who aren't in that group. Have moments of silence, sure, but not prayer. Give people the choice for themselves.
You know what? When I was in school we started every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance and then a moment of silence. And I used that moment of silence to say my morning prayer to myself. In my head. I said my blessings over my lunch and that was pretty much it. I never bothered anybody with it, I didn't sing the Shema out loud and confuse the other kids in class. I kept it to myself.
As far as the moment of silence goes? It really does not hurt anything. Religious and/or spiritual kids will use it to pray, or not. Non-religious kids will use it to work out math problems, or not. But, I feel that if there is a moment of silence than it's just polite to keep your trap shut during it. You might not be praying or being introspective, but that doesn't mean that others around you aren't. I see it more as a mutual respect thing, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be the minority opinion on that.
Without a minyan?
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
ehhh..
Religion is fine in the classroom if it's being presented in an objective and educational manner.
My world history teacher in high school started the year off by telling us that the first 3 weeks were going to be used by examining the major religions of the world, in an objective and educational view. He aslo told us that if any of us had a problem with that, we were free to leave the classroom and go find another teacher. Although he also suggested that if any of us decided to go that route, we should probably not be attending the 'academic' high school in the district in the first place and should instead be going to one of the Tech schools. His point was not belittling the tech schools so much as beating us with the whole 'if you're going to go to university then you had best be prepared to have your personal viewpoints challenged' kinda of thing.
not a single student left his class and we learned objectively about religion and history.
But that's about the only time I would ever say that religion and school should be mixed.
Edit:: bagginses, ayup. what can I say, i'm a rebel.
Religion is fine in the classroom if it's being presented in an objective and educational manner.
My world history teacher in high school started the year off by telling us that the first 3 weeks were going to be used by examining the major religions of the world, in an objective and educational view. He aslo told us that if any of us had a problem with that, we were free to leave the classroom and go find another teacher. Although he also suggested that if any of us decided to go that route, we should probably not be attending the 'academic' high school in the district in the first place and should instead be going to one of the Tech schools. His point was not belittling the tech schools so much as beating us with the whole 'if you're going to go to university then you had best be prepared to have your personal viewpoints challenged' kinda of thing.
not a single student left his class and we learned objectively about religion and history.
But that's about the only time I would ever say that religion and school should be mixed.
Edit:: bagginses, ayup. what can I say, i'm a rebel.
But that isn't mixing religion and education, that's teaching about things that exist in the world and that students need to learn about.
If students want to form clubs to express themselves religiously, fine. If they want to pray, fine. But outside of a moment of silence there's nothing more the school needs to do.
I'm pretty sure that establishment just means that we can't enforce a national religion, and that free exercise includes anything up to and and including a teacher-led prayer, so long as no one is forced to participate.
I'm pretty sure that establishment just means that we can't enforce a national religion, and that free exercise includes anything up to and and including a teacher-led prayer, so long as no one is forced to participate.
And I'm the athiest of atheists.
There are a bunch of cases that disagree with you.
I'm pretty sure that establishment just means that we can't enforce a national religion, and that free exercise includes anything up to and and including a teacher-led prayer, so long as no one is forced to participate.
And I'm the athiest of atheists.
There are a bunch of cases that disagree with you.
No doubt. I'm "pretty sure" on a higher order.
Yar on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The Catholic Church maintains there is no such institution as The Catholic Church as a mechanism by which to avoid being sued.
I'm pretty sure that establishment just means that we can't enforce a national religion, and that free exercise includes anything up to and and including a teacher-led prayer, so long as no one is forced to participate.
And I'm the athiest of atheists.
There are a bunch of cases that disagree with you.
No doubt. I'm "pretty sure" on a higher order.
And since we're talking about what the law is, rather than what it should be, what you're "pretty sure" about doesn't mean a thing.
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that there was an exemption in non-discrimination law for religious organizations based on "ministrial exemption". That because those in ministrial positions are also church leaders, and churches should be able to pick and choose their own leaders, they should be able to fire and hire those positions without fear of legal reprisal. They found against the plaintiff because she was in a "leadership position", teaching scripture and such in the classroom. However, they left room for any secular positions, such as janitors, groundskeepers, nurses, doctors, etc., to remain protected under anti-discrimination laws. They did not go so far as to defined what positions did and did not meet the requirements for "ministrial exemption", which does leave the potential for abuse.
Mikey CTS on
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that there was an exemption in non-discrimination law for religious organizations based on "ministrial exemption". That because those in ministrial positions are also church leaders, and churches should be able to pick and choose their own leaders, they should be able to fire and hire those positions without fear of legal reprisal. They found against the plaintiff because she was in a "leadership position", teaching scripture and such in the classroom. However, they left room for any secular positions, such as janitors, groundskeepers, nurses, doctors, etc., to remain protected under anti-discrimination laws. They did not go so far as to defined what positions did and did not meet the requirements for "ministrial exemption", which does leave the potential for abuse.
Right, they just let churches determine who's a "minister" under the exception. The teacher was pretty clearly a minister in the facts of the case, but there aren't restrictions on who churches can consider a "minister". Why not make every teacher, every janitor a minister in your religion? The court can't step in and say "whoa, the janitor's not a minister," because that's the state evaluating what counts as religious and what doesn't.
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that there was an exemption in non-discrimination law for religious organizations based on "ministrial exemption". That because those in ministrial positions are also church leaders, and churches should be able to pick and choose their own leaders, they should be able to fire and hire those positions without fear of legal reprisal. They found against the plaintiff because she was in a "leadership position", teaching scripture and such in the classroom. However, they left room for any secular positions, such as janitors, groundskeepers, nurses, doctors, etc., to remain protected under anti-discrimination laws. They did not go so far as to defined what positions did and did not meet the requirements for "ministrial exemption", which does leave the potential for abuse.
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that there was an exemption in non-discrimination law for religious organizations based on "ministrial exemption". That because those in ministrial positions are also church leaders, and churches should be able to pick and choose their own leaders, they should be able to fire and hire those positions without fear of legal reprisal. They found against the plaintiff because she was in a "leadership position", teaching scripture and such in the classroom. However, they left room for any secular positions, such as janitors, groundskeepers, nurses, doctors, etc., to remain protected under anti-discrimination laws. They did not go so far as to defined what positions did and did not meet the requirements for "ministrial exemption", which does leave the potential for abuse.
Right, they just let churches determine who's a "minister" under the exception. The teacher was pretty clearly a minister in the facts of the case, but there aren't restrictions on who churches can consider a "minister". Why not make every teacher, every janitor a minister in your religion? The court can't step in and say "whoa, the janitor's not a minister," because that's the state evaluating what counts as religious and what doesn't.
Spoilered for length.
I think they might have a difficult court case claiming that a janitor is a minister. I'm not saying that there isn't room for abuse here, there clearly is, but your reaction seems a bit alarmist. I consider myself athei-er than most and I have a hard time getting riled up about this.
I sort of agree with this ruling, too. They tried force her to resign over fears (and prior incidents) that young children in her care would be suddenly in the care of an unconscious person. She threatened lawsuit. At which point, I believe they had a point. If she's looking to the government to force her clergy to act against their intents, then she isn't a part of that clergy anymore. I mean, there is a point of reason that has to be acknowledged here. If a church found out one of their ministers was a practicing Satanist, for example, they ought to be able to remove them from their ministry without being subject to a religious discrimination suit.
Posts
Exactly.
Heck, look at the blowback when someone suggested there was something wrong with it. The school board was a bit wishy washy on it but the community wasn't going to stand for anything unless they were forced to. And courts don't play the "snip out the bad parts" game.
So, kinda nukes that argument, eh?
Sorry to get so silly at the end there, but shit was getting real.
Keep yearning; won't happen in your lifetime, barring lol singularity.
I was raised Catholic, and even though I broke those chains and found my own way, you bet your ass they have a fairly well entrenched base of faithful, and most people who think of themselves as Catholic and will join behind a Catholic cause go to mass exactly twice a year, so it isn't even really a big commitment to remain a member of the flock.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Zeus is awesome.
You know what? When I was in school we started every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance and then a moment of silence. And I used that moment of silence to say my morning prayer to myself. In my head. I said my blessings over my lunch and that was pretty much it. I never bothered anybody with it, I didn't sing the Shema out loud and confuse the other kids in class. I kept it to myself.
As far as the moment of silence goes? It really does not hurt anything. Religious and/or spiritual kids will use it to pray, or not. Non-religious kids will use it to work out math problems, or not. But, I feel that if there is a moment of silence than it's just polite to keep your trap shut during it. You might not be praying or being introspective, but that doesn't mean that others around you aren't. I see it more as a mutual respect thing, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be the minority opinion on that.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Again, agreeing with this idea.
It isn't moments of silence after the pledge that are the problem, it's actual prayer sessions sponsored by the state.
I'm a Christian, and I think before people start yammering on about "Guvmint came and took mah baby jesus" they should think, Would I want another religion's prayer being said at this school? I'm willing to bet 9/10 times the answer to that question is no.
Also, Odin's where it's at.
Religion doesn't belong in the classroom, it's the parent's jobs to raise their kids religious if they want. It's the government's job to teach them things that help them get jobs.
You can't have a sponsored/sanctioned prayer because it excludes kids who aren't in that group. Have moments of silence, sure, but not prayer. Give people the choice for themselves.
Without a minyan?
Religion is fine in the classroom if it's being presented in an objective and educational manner.
My world history teacher in high school started the year off by telling us that the first 3 weeks were going to be used by examining the major religions of the world, in an objective and educational view. He aslo told us that if any of us had a problem with that, we were free to leave the classroom and go find another teacher. Although he also suggested that if any of us decided to go that route, we should probably not be attending the 'academic' high school in the district in the first place and should instead be going to one of the Tech schools. His point was not belittling the tech schools so much as beating us with the whole 'if you're going to go to university then you had best be prepared to have your personal viewpoints challenged' kinda of thing.
not a single student left his class and we learned objectively about religion and history.
But that's about the only time I would ever say that religion and school should be mixed.
Edit:: bagginses, ayup. what can I say, i'm a rebel.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
But that isn't mixing religion and education, that's teaching about things that exist in the world and that students need to learn about.
If students want to form clubs to express themselves religiously, fine. If they want to pray, fine. But outside of a moment of silence there's nothing more the school needs to do.
And I'm the athiest of atheists.
No doubt. I'm "pretty sure" on a higher order.
I usually think of Apo being in that spot.
no offense meant, of course.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
But I tend to put you more top because you don't seem as angry militant as Than.
I could be wrong.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
This would be the "I reject your reality and substitute my own" order? Because your 'pretty sure' statement is, at least in the US, flat-out wrong.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Not according to my old sig!
Looks like the Catholics are breaking even.
How the fuck did she get fired in the first place?
I hope she can sue them for lots of money purely to punish their stupidity.
I thought I was the atheiest? Though more accurately, I'm a militant anti-dogmatic agnostic.
And to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch.
Also they pulled the brilliant move of saying "It's against our religion to sue us in court. Therefore, by trying to sue us, you're not sufficiently religious to hold that position, so you're double-fired."
Who wants to guess how many other churches are going to slip that little nugget into their rulebooks now that SCOTUS endorsed it?
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that there was an exemption in non-discrimination law for religious organizations based on "ministrial exemption". That because those in ministrial positions are also church leaders, and churches should be able to pick and choose their own leaders, they should be able to fire and hire those positions without fear of legal reprisal. They found against the plaintiff because she was in a "leadership position", teaching scripture and such in the classroom. However, they left room for any secular positions, such as janitors, groundskeepers, nurses, doctors, etc., to remain protected under anti-discrimination laws. They did not go so far as to defined what positions did and did not meet the requirements for "ministrial exemption", which does leave the potential for abuse.
Right, they just let churches determine who's a "minister" under the exception. The teacher was pretty clearly a minister in the facts of the case, but there aren't restrictions on who churches can consider a "minister". Why not make every teacher, every janitor a minister in your religion? The court can't step in and say "whoa, the janitor's not a minister," because that's the state evaluating what counts as religious and what doesn't.
I'm actually kind of okay with that.
Spoilered for length.
I think they might have a difficult court case claiming that a janitor is a minister. I'm not saying that there isn't room for abuse here, there clearly is, but your reaction seems a bit alarmist. I consider myself athei-er than most and I have a hard time getting riled up about this.