I guess I wouldn't mind a moment of silence before the start of a school day, except that I've only ever seen it proposed as a stand in for prayer, and I can't say I've seen a sufficiently valid reason to have it. "They can do whatever they want as long as they stay silent" is not a valid reason to do something, it should serve an actual purpose.
Sick leave for treatment. When she tried to come Barack they said "No place for you, suckah."
I hope she can sue them for lots of money purely to punish their stupidity.
Well, the supreme court says that a private, religious school can do whatever the hell they want. So it seems unlikely.
This is glossing over the details of the case.
Roberts said Perich had a title of “minister of religion,” was tasked with doing her job “according to the word of God,” and had received special religious training in a formal commissioning process. “Perich’s job duties reflected a role in conveying the church’s message and carrying out its mission,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the ruling was confined the facts of the case—a fired minister who could not sue for employment discrimination because of the ministerial exception. “We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers," he said.
The "teacher" was considered a minister, and when a church fires a minister, the aggrieved minister can go pound sand.
Plus, there is a certain bit of schadenfreude when someone devotes their time to supporting and forwarding a belief system that eventually doesn't give two shits about them.
I guess I wouldn't mind a moment of silence before the start of a school day, except that I've only ever seen it proposed as a stand in for prayer, and I can't say I've seen a sufficiently valid reason to have it. "They can do whatever they want as long as they stay silent" is not a valid reason to do something, it should serve an actual purpose.
I was in high school when the original moment of silence thing began, and I half-heartedly protested it by complaining directly to my teacher about it, during it. But I had a lot of respect for her, and I knew she agreed with me, and I also knew she was a stickler for the rules... so I just caved when she entreated me to express my disdain in a less disobedient manner.
But yeah, what bugged me so much about was not that we had a moment of silence. It was more just that it seemed so weasely. Such a wormy way of saying, "ha-ha liberals we're praying and you can't stop us!" I'd rather they just allow students and/or teachers to pray or lead prayers, so long as no one's forced into it. And the fact that I was forced into the moment of silence. That to me seemed worse than just letting the government stay out of it, and letting religious minority students have a bit of conviction of their own and deal with whatever religious activity is going on around them.
I guess I wouldn't mind a moment of silence before the start of a school day, except that I've only ever seen it proposed as a stand in for prayer, and I can't say I've seen a sufficiently valid reason to have it. "They can do whatever they want as long as they stay silent" is not a valid reason to do something, it should serve an actual purpose.
I was in high school when the original moment of silence thing began, and I half-heartedly protested it by complaining directly to my teacher about it, during it. But I had a lot of respect for her, and I knew she agreed with me, and I also knew she was a stickler for the rules... so I just caved when she entreated me to express my disdain in a less disobedient manner.
But yeah, what bugged me so much about was not that we had a moment of silence. It was more just that it seemed so weasely. Such a wormy way of saying, "ha-ha liberals we're praying and you can't stop us!" I'd rather they just allow students and/or teachers to pray or lead prayers, so long as no one's forced into it. And the fact that I was forced into the moment of silence. That to me seemed worse than just letting the government stay out of it, and letting religious minority students have a bit of conviction of their own and deal with whatever religious activity is going on around them.
I had thought the whole "moment of silence" thing was a failed ploy to shame non religious students.
Like idea was that all of the christian students would do obvious praying stuff and then single out (and ostracize) the other kids.
I had thought the whole "moment of silence" thing was a failed ploy to shame non religious students.
Like idea was that all of the christian students would do obvious praying stuff and then single out (and ostracize) the other kids.
That sounds more like something an opponent of it would make up for rhetorical purposes, but has very little real-world relevance.
It was, from my first-person perspective, an attempt at a check-mate in an ideological battle between community-based school atmosphere, and freedom of religion enforced from the state or federal level that more resembled an Establishment of Secularism. At the time, at least in my state, there were relatively frequent battles over specifics about school prayer. IIRC, a case had just been decided in which groups of students praying together at school, without adminstrative participation, was banned. This was a response to that, a mandatory moment of silence so that if any individual or group wanted a morning prayer, they could have one, but it would have a force-field around it of "moment of silence to reflect... it's not a prayer!" It was argued as a way to give students time to calm themselves and reflect on the day ahead or something, and thus would increase learning and reduce crime.
It just seemed like such a cowardly victory in the school prayer war. And the net result was that I was forced to participate in it, whatever it was, which is like the one thing I most hoped my goverment would not be doing on this issue - forcing people to participate.
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.
Satan infiltrates everything anyway so why bother? ;-)
That's kind of a loaded question. I don't think we ought to be laundering mandatory health care through the private industry the way we do. But as long as we are, I think contraception and brith control ought to be a part of it.
That's kind of a loaded question. I don't think we ought to be laundering mandatory health care through the private industry the way we do. But as long as we are, I think contraception and brith control ought to be a part of it.
Considering how Wyden/Bennett was totally ignored, I think we have to accept we're stuck with the private employer model for a while.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I had thought the whole "moment of silence" thing was a failed ploy to shame non religious students.
Like idea was that all of the christian students would do obvious praying stuff and then single out (and ostracize) the other kids.
That sounds more like something an opponent of it would make up for rhetorical purposes, but has very little real-world relevance.
It was, from my first-person perspective, an attempt at a check-mate in an ideological battle between community-based school atmosphere, and freedom of religion enforced from the state or federal level that more resembled an Establishment of Secularism. At the time, at least in my state, there were relatively frequent battles over specifics about school prayer. IIRC, a case had just been decided in which groups of students praying together at school, without adminstrative participation, was banned. This was a response to that, a mandatory moment of silence so that if any individual or group wanted a morning prayer, they could have one, but it would have a force-field around it of "moment of silence to reflect... it's not a prayer!" It was argued as a way to give students time to calm themselves and reflect on the day ahead or something, and thus would increase learning and reduce crime.
It just seemed like such a cowardly victory in the school prayer war. And the net result was that I was forced to participate in it, whatever it was, which is like the one thing I most hoped my goverment would not be doing on this issue - forcing people to participate.
Well not their stated goal I'm sure but you have to ask why bother otherwise. What can you do in a moment of silence you couldn't do in a moment of everyone getting ready for class?
My highschool culture war was prayer at graduation and That was play number one.
I once watched a bunch of christians (to use the word loosely) ask atheist's sister if she was sad her brother was going to burn in hell.
The best part of the moment of silence is that, at least at my school, it didn't accomplish jack shit. Nobody prayed who wouldn't have prayed anyway at some other time of day (like before school or at lunch), and almost everybody just relaxed for a minute, or read.
The best part of the moment of silence is that, at least at my school, it didn't accomplish jack shit. Nobody prayed who wouldn't have prayed anyway at some other time of day (like before school or at lunch), and almost everybody just relaxed for a minute, or read.
Yeah, I never once saw anyone pray during the moment of silence and I lived in the Bible Belt. Most kids just stared at the walls.
I knew a kid who prayed during those moments. He and I were friends for a while until his ultra-conservative parents told him he was not allowed to have friends. (I think because I kept asking him tough theological questions that he was passing on to his parents.)
I think he was a Jehovah's Witness.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
I believe that the schoolyard can be a nasty, unfair place in a lot of ways. I don't think that laws about prayer in school were ever primarily motivated by that bully mentality. I'm pretty sure they were mostly motivated by differences of interpretation (and difference in social preference) regarding Establishment vs. Free Exercise.
Some people feel that religion in public schools is free exercise of religion. They feel that as long as no one is being punished by the government for their religion, or as long as the school isn't establishing a particular religion as The One, then there isn't an issue. They view attempts to outlaw prayer in schools as examples of the kind of government attack on free religion that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent. They also believe that schools are a local community thing, and that the school environment is free to reflect the community it is a part of.
Others note that public school is a government organization, and a largely mandatory one at that, and thus they feel that there is a particularly high level of religious scrutiny and sanitization that must occur, or else you've basically set up a government church. They feel that a mandatory attendance government institution that holds prayer and religious teaching is exactly the kind of government establishment of religion that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent.
I believe that there are probably some in the former group who secretly, or subconsciously, really want mainstream Christianity forced onto kids in schools. Even more so I believe that there are probably people in the second group who secretly, or subconsciously, really hate mainstream Christianity and want it banned and eradicated in any way possible. But I don't think either or these are the main ideological factors here. I think the issues are mostly what I stated above.
I believe that there are probably some in the former group who secretly, or subconsciously, really want mainstream Christianity forced onto kids in schools.
... what?
Every single time anything regarding religion and schools pops up there's an avalanche of people who stand up and yell "No! We want Jesus in school damnit!" There's nothing "secret" or "subconscious" about it.
Every single time anything regarding religion and schools pops up there's an avalanche of people who stand up and yell "No! We want Jesus in school damnit!" There's nothing "secret" or "subconscious" about it.
The other part of it is that, yes, at a practical, community level, there are people who just want Jesus in school. But that is more a matter of what I originally stated in the first part. They don't want sanitized secular school day. They want their religion in there like they have it everywhere else in their community,a nd they don't want the federal government saying it's not ok. However, the secret/subconscious thing is more the issue of "we want to use the school as an arm of government enforcing one true religion on everyone, even if they don't want it." I don't think that most people overtly feel that way about it.
Every single time anything regarding religion and schools pops up there's an avalanche of people who stand up and yell "No! We want Jesus in school damnit!" There's nothing "secret" or "subconscious" about it.
The other part of it is that, yes, at a practical, community level, there are people who just want Jesus in school. But that is more a matter of what I originally stated in the first part. They don't want sanitized secular school day. They want their religion in there like they have it everywhere else in their community,a nd they don't want the federal government saying it's not ok. However, the secret/subconscious thing is more the issue of "we want to use the school as an arm of government enforcing one true religion on everyone, even if they don't want it." I don't think that most people overtly feel that way about it.
Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.
These people regret not having bible reading in schools anymore. The bitching about secularism is just another way of talking about how much they want to push Christianity.
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
Should the moment of silence still be used as a non-secular way of honoring the dead, at venues both public and private?
Honoring the dead is pretty secular.
At what point does it make the leap to ostensibly religious behavior? Would you point to the frequency ("every day" rather than once a year to remember 9/11 victims, for instance) or qualifying language, such as being asked to "bow your head" in a moment of silence?
Where is the threshold? Help those of us who didn't go to high school in the 2000s and so are pretty surprised to learn about things like vehement objections to the moment of silence during the moment of silence itself.
I don't like 'em. They make me antsy and they get my mind racing and then I feel shitty because instead of honoring the dead I considered several builds for Starcraft and thought about whether dogs differ in intelligence due to size at all. It feels wrong and I prefer honoring the dead to consist of remembering them as an inspiration to be a decent human being than as an actual event.
I'm from Canada, and my school's moment of silence never seemed like an excuse to shoehorn prayer into the school day. It was just a moment of silence. But it might come from a difference in history. We have semi-public funded religious schools, so we tend to catch the fundamentalists there. This means that there isn't much demand for religious teachings in our ordinary schools.
3DS friend code: 3523-3358-5049
Proud owner of the Veggie, Constellation and Cephalothorax badges
I'd rather they just allow students and/or teachers to pray or lead prayers, so long as no one's forced into it.
I'd rather they just get started and teach. A teacher leading prayers is tacit approval of the religion, as you have the authority figure of the class doing it. "The students don't have to participate" is not a sufficient excuse, as anyone not participating is, by nature of not participating, excluded.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So some airports have a "faith zone" stuck in them so you can go in and pray when you want. Could we not stick a shack at the far end of the playground/athletic field and say "Have fun on your free time" without getting in the way of class time?
Now, in my experience pledge/moment of silence came during homeroom along with announcements so it isn't like the MoS is getting in the way of teh maths and sciences but still.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I'm not sure they even need a shack; I think MM's point was well-taken, as long as they have free time at some point, (unless they're a fringe religion that requires specialized attention) they can use that free time to pray if they want to.
I'm not sure they even need a shack; I think MM's point was well-taken, as long as they have free time at some point, (unless they're a fringe religion that requires specialized attention) they can use that free time to pray if they want to.
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.
Of course the court can. A religion is going to have rules about who is and isn't a "minister", that is, unless they want every random silly goose on the Internet claiming to be a minister of their faith. If you read the court case it refers to 'ministerial duties'. It's not just about the label, but what the person is actually doing.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Every single time anything regarding religion and schools pops up there's an avalanche of people who stand up and yell "No! We want Jesus in school damnit!" There's nothing "secret" or "subconscious" about it.
The other part of it is that, yes, at a practical, community level, there are people who just want Jesus in school. But that is more a matter of what I originally stated in the first part. They don't want sanitized secular school day. They want their religion in there like they have it everywhere else in their community,a nd they don't want the federal government saying it's not ok. However, the secret/subconscious thing is more the issue of "we want to use the school as an arm of government enforcing one true religion on everyone, even if they don't want it." I don't think that most people overtly feel that way about it.
I guess it depends on who you are talking about. Most people dont care one way or another but the leaders are vocal about their desire for everyone to be a Christian and if you are not they want you to know you are wrong.
But dont take my word for it. Go ask an evangelical preacher if talking about homosexuality during class constitutes government endorsement.
They wouldn't be the first group to follow the tenets of their religion loosely.
I'm trying to think of a religion wherein finding out that a sizable percentage of the population engages in premarital sex would be a shock. Even if there is such a group, most married couples these days don't want to have 6+ children yet still like to bump uglies now and again.
I love how even the catholics think its a good idea.
I agree with both of you. How else could they attract good physicians? Even if they aren't forced to provide the contraception benefit, I would be surprised if the Catholics change their policies much, because they would likely find themselves without a labor force, because health care is so competitive in terms of compensation.
Posts
This is glossing over the details of the case.
The "teacher" was considered a minister, and when a church fires a minister, the aggrieved minister can go pound sand.
I was in high school when the original moment of silence thing began, and I half-heartedly protested it by complaining directly to my teacher about it, during it. But I had a lot of respect for her, and I knew she agreed with me, and I also knew she was a stickler for the rules... so I just caved when she entreated me to express my disdain in a less disobedient manner.
But yeah, what bugged me so much about was not that we had a moment of silence. It was more just that it seemed so weasely. Such a wormy way of saying, "ha-ha liberals we're praying and you can't stop us!" I'd rather they just allow students and/or teachers to pray or lead prayers, so long as no one's forced into it. And the fact that I was forced into the moment of silence. That to me seemed worse than just letting the government stay out of it, and letting religious minority students have a bit of conviction of their own and deal with whatever religious activity is going on around them.
I had thought the whole "moment of silence" thing was a failed ploy to shame non religious students.
Like idea was that all of the christian students would do obvious praying stuff and then single out (and ostracize) the other kids.
That sounds more like something an opponent of it would make up for rhetorical purposes, but has very little real-world relevance.
It was, from my first-person perspective, an attempt at a check-mate in an ideological battle between community-based school atmosphere, and freedom of religion enforced from the state or federal level that more resembled an Establishment of Secularism. At the time, at least in my state, there were relatively frequent battles over specifics about school prayer. IIRC, a case had just been decided in which groups of students praying together at school, without adminstrative participation, was banned. This was a response to that, a mandatory moment of silence so that if any individual or group wanted a morning prayer, they could have one, but it would have a force-field around it of "moment of silence to reflect... it's not a prayer!" It was argued as a way to give students time to calm themselves and reflect on the day ahead or something, and thus would increase learning and reduce crime.
It just seemed like such a cowardly victory in the school prayer war. And the net result was that I was forced to participate in it, whatever it was, which is like the one thing I most hoped my goverment would not be doing on this issue - forcing people to participate.
This is totally unsurprising, at least to me.
Considering how Wyden/Bennett was totally ignored, I think we have to accept we're stuck with the private employer model for a while.
Well not their stated goal I'm sure but you have to ask why bother otherwise. What can you do in a moment of silence you couldn't do in a moment of everyone getting ready for class?
My highschool culture war was prayer at graduation and That was play number one.
I once watched a bunch of christians (to use the word loosely) ask atheist's sister if she was sad her brother was going to burn in hell.
Yeah, I never once saw anyone pray during the moment of silence and I lived in the Bible Belt. Most kids just stared at the walls.
I think he was a Jehovah's Witness.
Some people feel that religion in public schools is free exercise of religion. They feel that as long as no one is being punished by the government for their religion, or as long as the school isn't establishing a particular religion as The One, then there isn't an issue. They view attempts to outlaw prayer in schools as examples of the kind of government attack on free religion that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent. They also believe that schools are a local community thing, and that the school environment is free to reflect the community it is a part of.
Others note that public school is a government organization, and a largely mandatory one at that, and thus they feel that there is a particularly high level of religious scrutiny and sanitization that must occur, or else you've basically set up a government church. They feel that a mandatory attendance government institution that holds prayer and religious teaching is exactly the kind of government establishment of religion that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent.
I believe that there are probably some in the former group who secretly, or subconsciously, really want mainstream Christianity forced onto kids in schools. Even more so I believe that there are probably people in the second group who secretly, or subconsciously, really hate mainstream Christianity and want it banned and eradicated in any way possible. But I don't think either or these are the main ideological factors here. I think the issues are mostly what I stated above.
... what?
Every single time anything regarding religion and schools pops up there's an avalanche of people who stand up and yell "No! We want Jesus in school damnit!" There's nothing "secret" or "subconscious" about it.
The other part of it is that, yes, at a practical, community level, there are people who just want Jesus in school. But that is more a matter of what I originally stated in the first part. They don't want sanitized secular school day. They want their religion in there like they have it everywhere else in their community,a nd they don't want the federal government saying it's not ok. However, the secret/subconscious thing is more the issue of "we want to use the school as an arm of government enforcing one true religion on everyone, even if they don't want it." I don't think that most people overtly feel that way about it.
Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.
Honoring the dead is pretty secular.
At what point does it make the leap to ostensibly religious behavior? Would you point to the frequency ("every day" rather than once a year to remember 9/11 victims, for instance) or qualifying language, such as being asked to "bow your head" in a moment of silence?
Where is the threshold? Help those of us who didn't go to high school in the 2000s and so are pretty surprised to learn about things like vehement objections to the moment of silence during the moment of silence itself.
I don't like 'em. They make me antsy and they get my mind racing and then I feel shitty because instead of honoring the dead I considered several builds for Starcraft and thought about whether dogs differ in intelligence due to size at all. It feels wrong and I prefer honoring the dead to consist of remembering them as an inspiration to be a decent human being than as an actual event.
Proud owner of the Veggie, Constellation and Cephalothorax badges
I'd rather they just get started and teach. A teacher leading prayers is tacit approval of the religion, as you have the authority figure of the class doing it. "The students don't have to participate" is not a sufficient excuse, as anyone not participating is, by nature of not participating, excluded.
Now, in my experience pledge/moment of silence came during homeroom along with announcements so it isn't like the MoS is getting in the way of teh maths and sciences but still.
I'd agree with this.
we were only told to be silent, not that we couldn't rub our faces in hopefully invigorating manner.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Of course the court can. A religion is going to have rules about who is and isn't a "minister", that is, unless they want every random silly goose on the Internet claiming to be a minister of their faith. If you read the court case it refers to 'ministerial duties'. It's not just about the label, but what the person is actually doing.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
But dont take my word for it. Go ask an evangelical preacher if talking about homosexuality during class constitutes government endorsement.
I love how even the catholics think its a good idea.
I'm trying to think of a religion wherein finding out that a sizable percentage of the population engages in premarital sex would be a shock. Even if there is such a group, most married couples these days don't want to have 6+ children yet still like to bump uglies now and again.
one of them lives in the 14th century
goddamnit