789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 190:
Line 190: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
Now your being facetious Aschlafly. I am not going to debate you anymore. Your attitude is combative and rather bullheaded.
Now your being facetious Aschlafly. I am not going to debate you anymore. Your attitude is combative and rather bullheaded.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)
== Basic Problem ==
To return to the debate above, but on a different tact, it seems to me there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. It was pointed out, rightly, that America is not a tyranny of the majority, and that everyone has freedom of religion. So let us look at the matter closely.
(1) Classroom-led nondenominational prayer. With this scenario, a teacher would lead a "nondenominational" prayer in class for the children, who could participate or not. The problem is that it is impossible for any prayer to be truly nondenominational... what most people mean when they say this is a monotheist prayer that would suit members of the Abrahamic religions and some others. But it would leave out in the cold most Hindus, by implying that there was only one God.
:(a) This implication derives from the fact that a state-sponsored institution's state-sponsored teacher, intended to impart education about the world to the students, is endorsing a specific view. Voicing this view to the exclusion of others is implicit endorsement, especially to children, and especially when the alternative views are ignored.
Further, even if the phrasing included both monotheistic and polytheistic religions, it discards those such as Shinto or Confucianism that do not adhere to traditional notions of "gods" in any meaningful sense.
:(b) The argument might be made that "everyone worships the same god(s) under a different name," but the name that would be chosen would be that of a western-centric "god" concept, and accordingly endorsement under the reasoning of point 1a.
2) Should the teacher adopt a "moment of silence" approach, this might suit many people bothered by the points arising in 1a and 1b. It would seem to appeal to all theists. However, atheism/agnosticism have several different ethical traditions, such as freethought or the new (ridiculous) Brights movement, which can also be reasonably considered "religions" in the sense meant by "freedom of religion," since they repute to impart moral principles and ethical considerations along with a cosmology. Americans are free to be freethinkers or Brights if they choose, accordingly (and as decided by the Supreme Court). So this brings up an objection to the moment of silence, since the question is "What is the moment of silence for?", and it seems to be implied that it is for spiritual contemplation.
:(a)It can be argued, of course, that everyone can indulge in spiritual contemplation, and so it should not bother anyone. Brights are free to contemplate Darwin, one might quip.
::(i)This would, however, still be a endorsement of spiritual contemplation, and further, it would be obvious to any reasonable person that this was a time for prayer.
I believe the argument against (1) is very strong, and the argument against (2) is less strong. A case might reasonably be made for a moment of silence, but not for any sort of prayer led by a teacher in a public school, since the latter is of necessity and endorsement. Separation of church and state is a very important thing... not so much to keep religion out of the government and schools, but to keep the government and schools out of religion.
Perhaps someone disagrees with me... it would simplify things to indicate which point you find a flaw in my reasoning.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:18, 5 March 2008 (EST)