The New School Prayer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 by WOM | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
From watching whats on the news now a days, thought this made a lot of sense.
 |
|
Page 4 of 8 | |
|
|---|
EventHorizon
Reply #62 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:10 PM
Children must be impressed with some sort of ideas when it comes spirituality/God etc. I dont see how imposing religion A B or C is any 'worse' than impessing atheism, since atheism is also a 'religion.' (sans the deity)
If all the world is an accident, with nothing to give it inherent value beyond phony human sentiment (chemical imbalances?), then such notions as "noble" and "cruelty", "right" and "wrong" (in otherwords, 'morality') lose all meaning.
Eventually the kid will grow up and ask 'why obey morality?'
Unless there is a 'reason,' he wont, and there wouldnt be a point to 'teaching' him about it in the first place.
The point? I dont believe any 'solid' idea of morality is possible without some sort of immoble 'foundation' for it to be placed upon. (ie, 'religion')
If I were an atheist, Id say 'screw morality, Im going to do whatever I can get away with,' and I'd do just that.
...And have a damn good time too.
What if 'being bad' is part of my character?
Can you spell 'RINO?' (Religious in name only) This is a flaw in the person, not a flaw in the religion.
Reply #62 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:10 PM
| I [as one who suffered it] equate the impressing of your parents' religion upon the child as assault. |
Children must be impressed with some sort of ideas when it comes spirituality/God etc. I dont see how imposing religion A B or C is any 'worse' than impessing atheism, since atheism is also a 'religion.' (sans the deity)
| Morality must be taught.... Religion 'may' be adopted. Again, there's a difference. |
If all the world is an accident, with nothing to give it inherent value beyond phony human sentiment (chemical imbalances?), then such notions as "noble" and "cruelty", "right" and "wrong" (in otherwords, 'morality') lose all meaning.
Eventually the kid will grow up and ask 'why obey morality?'
Unless there is a 'reason,' he wont, and there wouldnt be a point to 'teaching' him about it in the first place.
The point? I dont believe any 'solid' idea of morality is possible without some sort of immoble 'foundation' for it to be placed upon. (ie, 'religion')
If I were an atheist, Id say 'screw morality, Im going to do whatever I can get away with,' and I'd do just that.
...And have a damn good time too.
| Which is better: Being good because god watches you. Being good because it's part of your character and integrity. |
What if 'being bad' is part of my character?
| It seems that people always think the "god" is looking away each time they do crime and all that crap. And they said god knows all. |
Can you spell 'RINO?' (Religious in name only) This is a flaw in the person, not a flaw in the religion.
kona0197
Reply #63 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:17 PM
Reply #63 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:17 PM
I just wanted to point out that if you are an atheist then you deny there is a God correct? To deny God you have to acknowledge God exists first.
EventHorizon
Reply #64 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:22 PM
Um, no you dont.
I can deny the existance of just about anything that I dont believe exists. For a random example, '10 million dollars in my bank accont.'
I deny the existance of this money, and I never acknowleged its existance at any point.
Reply #64 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:22 PM
| To deny God you have to acknowledge God exists first. |
Um, no you dont.
I can deny the existance of just about anything that I dont believe exists. For a random example, '10 million dollars in my bank accont.'
I deny the existance of this money, and I never acknowleged its existance at any point.
NightTrainthedark
Reply #66 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:41 PM
Using the same logic...To acknowledge God, you acknowledge he may not exist either.
Reply #66 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:41 PM
| To deny God you have to acknowledge God exists first. |
Using the same logic...To acknowledge God, you acknowledge he may not exist either.
scorpio-logic
Reply #67 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:12 PM
Everyone already knows, your nick gives it away, that you are into sciences, maybe math the most. My expression "But no child will learn anything if there is no religious reference" should have the explanation. If one studies history, we will see that most of history books are filled with the do-goods and do-wrongs of various religions. Without these references, what mistakes are we to learn from.
BTW, no offense taken, good argument in fact. Along with math and sciences, there is music which brings together several aspects of a learning atmosphere: math, literature, history. Great amounts of music are inspired by religious, or spiritual, experiences.
BTW, again: I am a relaxed agnostic. For me, there is a God, who I'll not name and what is is between Him and I.
Reply #67 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:12 PM
| I am not out to offend anyone but teaching students about the earth is far more important than teaching them about a god. |
Everyone already knows, your nick gives it away, that you are into sciences, maybe math the most. My expression "But no child will learn anything if there is no religious reference" should have the explanation. If one studies history, we will see that most of history books are filled with the do-goods and do-wrongs of various religions. Without these references, what mistakes are we to learn from.
BTW, no offense taken, good argument in fact. Along with math and sciences, there is music which brings together several aspects of a learning atmosphere: math, literature, history. Great amounts of music are inspired by religious, or spiritual, experiences.
BTW, again: I am a relaxed agnostic. For me, there is a God, who I'll not name and what is is between Him and I.
ToeJo
Reply #68 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:33 PM
I don't hink anyone here has discounted you. On the contrary, I find you to be very engaging. Your comments reveal a person with deep convictions and a certain deep understanding of what you call the truth. I believe your age credits you because you have all the strength and excitement to ask for and effect a change. That appeals to me. I wish I had the zeal and clear understanding of my perspective that you have of your persprective. That zeal is the gift of being young.
I also had your perspective and excitement at one time. I even shared your point of view. However, my perspective changed when I had a personal encounter with truth. Now I see things completly different. And now I'm just too damn old and don't have the zeal, even strength, to fight the fight that you can fight.
I don't see anyone getting angry or even arguing. Just exchanging personal perspective and points of view. This is every bit healthy and engaging.
Reply #68 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:33 PM
| It is very frustrating to be discounted just because of my age, |
I don't hink anyone here has discounted you. On the contrary, I find you to be very engaging. Your comments reveal a person with deep convictions and a certain deep understanding of what you call the truth. I believe your age credits you because you have all the strength and excitement to ask for and effect a change. That appeals to me. I wish I had the zeal and clear understanding of my perspective that you have of your persprective. That zeal is the gift of being young.
I also had your perspective and excitement at one time. I even shared your point of view. However, my perspective changed when I had a personal encounter with truth. Now I see things completly different. And now I'm just too damn old and don't have the zeal, even strength, to fight the fight that you can fight.
| Only by reading this thread shows how easy people begin to argument with anger, in the name of God and religion. |
I don't see anyone getting angry or even arguing. Just exchanging personal perspective and points of view. This is every bit healthy and engaging.
ToeJo
Reply #69 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:34 PM
Reply #69 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:34 PM
I also wish I could spell.
Jafo, you're slacking off!
Jafo, you're slacking off!
EventHorizon
Reply #70 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:36 PM
Reply #70 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:36 PM
Well, there is an 'edit' function. Maybe you can fix the mistakes before he sees them.
Adamness
Reply #71 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:43 PM
Reply #71 Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:43 PM
See again, people are not respecting the ideas of atheists. Atheism is believing there is no God, or any deity. This is not denying God, but rather thinking there is no God.
And EventHorizon, there are some people who are genuinely good, and do good for the sake of it. I don't need any reward of an afterlife to be a good person. I don't need anyone watching me. My reward is knowing that I can help my fellow humans in some way. It's really cynical to think the only reason there are good people is because they're being watched. And this one reason why I have problems with some people of faith.
I don't mind religion or spirituality, so long as it's used properly. I see it as a tool, and like anything it can be used for good or bad, or not at all.
And EventHorizon, there are some people who are genuinely good, and do good for the sake of it. I don't need any reward of an afterlife to be a good person. I don't need anyone watching me. My reward is knowing that I can help my fellow humans in some way. It's really cynical to think the only reason there are good people is because they're being watched. And this one reason why I have problems with some people of faith.
I don't mind religion or spirituality, so long as it's used properly. I see it as a tool, and like anything it can be used for good or bad, or not at all.
EventHorizon
Reply #72 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:10 PM
Since when is 'disagreeing' disrespectful?
Afterlife is a consequence, but the 'moral weight' of the action trancends consequences. Even if there were no consequences, it still would be 'wrong' to do 'evil.'
In a godless world, why on earth would I want to do something 'good' unless it benefits myself in some way?
'Because you should do 'good' for the sake of doing good.' ...But why? Why should I care? Why should I care about anyone other than myself?
If by helping others I help myself, I will gladly help them, but otherwise...forget it.[/godlessworld]
Reply #72 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:10 PM
| See again, people are not respecting the ideas of atheists. |
Since when is 'disagreeing' disrespectful?
| And EventHorizon, there are some people who are genuinely good, and do good for the sake of it. I don't need any reward of an afterlife to be a good person. |
Afterlife is a consequence, but the 'moral weight' of the action trancends consequences. Even if there were no consequences, it still would be 'wrong' to do 'evil.'
| I don't need anyone watching me. My reward is knowing that I can help my fellow humans in some way. |
In a godless world, why on earth would I want to do something 'good' unless it benefits myself in some way?
'Because you should do 'good' for the sake of doing good.' ...But why? Why should I care? Why should I care about anyone other than myself?
If by helping others I help myself, I will gladly help them, but otherwise...forget it.[/godlessworld]
scorpio-logic
Reply #73 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:25 PM
Reply #73 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:25 PM
Adamness, the original post seems to be about religion in schools, not an argument over what we all believe or do not believe.
Are you saying that it would be better if schools admonished God and religion alltogether from their cirriculum?
It's not about being "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong". These are all perceptions. What it's about is the continuing survival of a Nation.
It's not about "being of faith". It's having faith. Without faith there is no reason for being right or wrong, good or bad. It's not just "consequences" if we are bad. It's the ability to be a compassionate equal citizen of earth.
Btw, it is completely impossible to prove whether or not a God exists. We could go on and on with philosophical debate.
And people are good because they believe they are being watched, whether by Big Brother or by God as they know and understand him. And people are good because there is fear of consequences. These conseqences can be defined individually, by the individual. The definitions the individual uses comes mostly from their belief system.
You say you do as you do because your reward is knowing that you can help your fellows. Some behave the same way because they have a fear of going to the great Abyss, and missing out on the great gathering in the sky.
So, we speculate onward. But what should be done is whatever is best for our next generation, and the one after that. And I don't believe that denying them of the access that generations before had access to is "the best" way to raise our children.
I have 4 of my own. Their mother wishes for a Christian upbringing. I was not raised with any belief system, rather I was allowed to associate with whatever faith I felt I needed. I will however, concur with my ex, and not disallow my children from the christian faith. I have hopes that they will eventually chose for themselves, which the two boys have done already. They want to learn more and experience more before they committ themselves to a lifestyle predicated from Scripture. I feel they have a better chance of understanding other faiths and cultures this way, and I am glad for it.
It's damned hard to live in this PC (politically correct, not personal computing) world. We can't say Happy Easter without freaking out someone who doesn't want their feelings or faith made smaller.
We learn when our minds are open.
"Wise people are not absorbed
In their own needs.
They atke the needs of all people
as their own.
...
Wise people merge with all others
rather than stand apart judgementally.
In this way, all begin
to open their ears and hearts,
more prepared to return
to the innocence of childhood."
-Lao Tzu
Are you saying that it would be better if schools admonished God and religion alltogether from their cirriculum?
It's not about being "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong". These are all perceptions. What it's about is the continuing survival of a Nation.
It's not about "being of faith". It's having faith. Without faith there is no reason for being right or wrong, good or bad. It's not just "consequences" if we are bad. It's the ability to be a compassionate equal citizen of earth.
Btw, it is completely impossible to prove whether or not a God exists. We could go on and on with philosophical debate.
And people are good because they believe they are being watched, whether by Big Brother or by God as they know and understand him. And people are good because there is fear of consequences. These conseqences can be defined individually, by the individual. The definitions the individual uses comes mostly from their belief system.
You say you do as you do because your reward is knowing that you can help your fellows. Some behave the same way because they have a fear of going to the great Abyss, and missing out on the great gathering in the sky.
So, we speculate onward. But what should be done is whatever is best for our next generation, and the one after that. And I don't believe that denying them of the access that generations before had access to is "the best" way to raise our children.
I have 4 of my own. Their mother wishes for a Christian upbringing. I was not raised with any belief system, rather I was allowed to associate with whatever faith I felt I needed. I will however, concur with my ex, and not disallow my children from the christian faith. I have hopes that they will eventually chose for themselves, which the two boys have done already. They want to learn more and experience more before they committ themselves to a lifestyle predicated from Scripture. I feel they have a better chance of understanding other faiths and cultures this way, and I am glad for it.
It's damned hard to live in this PC (politically correct, not personal computing) world. We can't say Happy Easter without freaking out someone who doesn't want their feelings or faith made smaller.
We learn when our minds are open.
"Wise people are not absorbed
In their own needs.
They atke the needs of all people
as their own.
...
Wise people merge with all others
rather than stand apart judgementally.
In this way, all begin
to open their ears and hearts,
more prepared to return
to the innocence of childhood."
-Lao Tzu
Adamness
Reply #74 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:56 PM
Reply #74 Thursday, January 5, 2006 5:56 PM
You guys must read a lot of Ayn Rand or something.
See, as an atheist, the only way I will 'live on' is by being remembered in the future, after my death. And only the best and the worst get remembered. I don't want to be remembered as a bad person, so I try and will continue to try to do good, and hope that someone will remember me, or at least keep my legacy and ideas alive. That is immortality. And that kind of immortality is much more meaningful than any afterlife.
So you see that is the reason to be a good person. While that maybe subjective in a certain way, but not overall. For example, people will remember Johann Gutenberg in a positive light. He changed the world, possibly more than anyone so far. On the other hand, Hitler will always be remembered as a bad person, one of the worst individuals the world has ever seen. Only very small minorities look upon Hitler positively.
While I will most likely never be among the ranks of Imhotep, Leo Da Vinci, Joey Gutenberg, Tommy Edison, or Billy Gates, I hopefull will find my niche in history. By the way, if you ever want to be inspired, read about those guy. Probably the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen.
As for religion being in schools, there is nothing wrong with talking about religion or God or spirituality, since it has been so very influential on humanity. However it is not appropriate to teach or preach and religion or spirituality. It is equally inappropriate to teach not believing in any deity. Looking at religion and spirituality, or lack thereof, in an objective way is the only appropriate way to address religion in publically funded schools. I'm sure you could imagine me not wanting my tax money going to teach any religion or spirituality.
Just imagine schools teaching kids to be atheists. That's how I feel about teaching anything other than proven facts, or at least theories. And religion and spirituality is no theory, but rather faith. Faith should never be taught, but rather experienced.
See, as an atheist, the only way I will 'live on' is by being remembered in the future, after my death. And only the best and the worst get remembered. I don't want to be remembered as a bad person, so I try and will continue to try to do good, and hope that someone will remember me, or at least keep my legacy and ideas alive. That is immortality. And that kind of immortality is much more meaningful than any afterlife.
So you see that is the reason to be a good person. While that maybe subjective in a certain way, but not overall. For example, people will remember Johann Gutenberg in a positive light. He changed the world, possibly more than anyone so far. On the other hand, Hitler will always be remembered as a bad person, one of the worst individuals the world has ever seen. Only very small minorities look upon Hitler positively.
While I will most likely never be among the ranks of Imhotep, Leo Da Vinci, Joey Gutenberg, Tommy Edison, or Billy Gates, I hopefull will find my niche in history. By the way, if you ever want to be inspired, read about those guy. Probably the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen.
As for religion being in schools, there is nothing wrong with talking about religion or God or spirituality, since it has been so very influential on humanity. However it is not appropriate to teach or preach and religion or spirituality. It is equally inappropriate to teach not believing in any deity. Looking at religion and spirituality, or lack thereof, in an objective way is the only appropriate way to address religion in publically funded schools. I'm sure you could imagine me not wanting my tax money going to teach any religion or spirituality.
Just imagine schools teaching kids to be atheists. That's how I feel about teaching anything other than proven facts, or at least theories. And religion and spirituality is no theory, but rather faith. Faith should never be taught, but rather experienced.
Island Dog
Reply #75 Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:28 PM
Reply #75 Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:28 PM
| If we are talking about the same episode, the facts are distorted beyond any truth known. The girl was not suspended. Her bus driver was for telling her she could not read her bible on his bus. She read her bible during recess without incident |
That was a different incident than the one I was referring to.
Sleeping Dragon
Reply #76 Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:56 PM
Reply #76 Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:56 PM
"Logically" speaking, without a single standard to look to, there is nothing that says morality is to be followed more than lack of it. The argument would be that "morality" is needed for the preservation of our species or it is needed to keep from infringing on the rites of others. Again "logically", there is nothing that stipulates that anarchy, confusion, and right infringement is not the preferred choice if I deem it so. No matter what you say aboout morality, it is ambiguous as to what it is or why it should be followed without there being a universal standard. Anything less leads to disagreement as to "right" or "wrong". It all becomes relative. Relativity means what is right for me could be wrong for you and visa versa.
With that thinking, what is "right" for me could be harmful to others and most would say that is "wrong", but I could just say "don't push your ethics on me, I believe thusly" and since morality between people and governments may all be relative, you could not deny it. You could only lock me up to prevent me from harming others, even though I may believe it to be ok.
Follow me?
There is no truth, unless it has come from something beyond our petty differences. Something outside of what we see and has more authority than government (because governments are often wrong. I'm sure to have no arguments here).
If there is universal "rightness", there needs to logically be a universal standard. It cannot be relative.
This is the beginning of faith. To believe in something bigger and more authoritative than ourselves. Something "supernatural" if you will, originating from beyond what we know to be "natural" or "visible" in our daily lives.
With that thinking, what is "right" for me could be harmful to others and most would say that is "wrong", but I could just say "don't push your ethics on me, I believe thusly" and since morality between people and governments may all be relative, you could not deny it. You could only lock me up to prevent me from harming others, even though I may believe it to be ok.
Follow me?
There is no truth, unless it has come from something beyond our petty differences. Something outside of what we see and has more authority than government (because governments are often wrong. I'm sure to have no arguments here).
If there is universal "rightness", there needs to logically be a universal standard. It cannot be relative.
This is the beginning of faith. To believe in something bigger and more authoritative than ourselves. Something "supernatural" if you will, originating from beyond what we know to be "natural" or "visible" in our daily lives.
Cynder-Elluh
Reply #77 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:01 PM
Yeah, what he said!
That is the bottom line_______________________________
Reply #77 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:01 PM
| If there is universal "rightness", there needs to logically be a universal standard. It cannot be relative. |
That is the bottom line_______________________________
NightTrainthedark
Reply #78 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:47 PM
Reply #78 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:47 PM
| That was a different incident than the one I was referring to. |
rabidrobot
Reply #79 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:50 PM
Reply #79 Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:50 PM
Island Dog, could you link some info on the incident you were referring to? I can't seem to find anything about it.
A point often overlooked when discussing these examples of "Christian persecution", especially when the examples are based in reality, is that Christians have the same recourse as everyone else. If a school system suspends a student for wearing a T-Shirt, or reading a book (at the appropriate time--you obviously shouldn't be reading during class), or saying "Merry Christmas" (just pick your talk radio rumor of the day), then that student or their parents can sue the school district. And they will win, because they should.
And, along the same lines, when Christians try and use the public schools to propagate their belief system by forcing other people's children to participate in rituals, the parents of those children can sue. And they will win, because they should.
A point often overlooked when discussing these examples of "Christian persecution", especially when the examples are based in reality, is that Christians have the same recourse as everyone else. If a school system suspends a student for wearing a T-Shirt, or reading a book (at the appropriate time--you obviously shouldn't be reading during class), or saying "Merry Christmas" (just pick your talk radio rumor of the day), then that student or their parents can sue the school district. And they will win, because they should.
And, along the same lines, when Christians try and use the public schools to propagate their belief system by forcing other people's children to participate in rituals, the parents of those children can sue. And they will win, because they should.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 8 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Thursday, January 5, 2006 2:11 PM