NationStates

Timothia wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Because a school is an arm of the government.

So? If kids in school are so impressionable that they cannot hear a prayer before a football game without being converted, then they shouldn't be near any peer or teacher who has any strong convictions of any kind, either. So long as no money is spent, what is the issue? If people wanted to beg the great fairy godmother for pixie dust and safety before football games, I wouldn't care. Their intentions are good and their prayer means nothing to me: why would it matter? If an atheist spoke before the game and said that he hoped the game would be good and that everyone would be safe, I wouldn't care. If a Native-American shaman came out and did a tribal dance that brought safety and good luck to the teams that were playing, it would be a bit weird, but I wouldn't think it was established religion. So what is the issue?

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:So? If kids in school are so impressionable that they cannot hear a prayer before a football game without being converted, then they shouldn't be near any peer or teacher who has any strong convictions of any kind, either. So long as no money is spent, what is the issue? If people wanted to beg the great fairy godmother for pixie dust and safety before football games, I wouldn't care. Their intentions are good and their prayer means nothing to me: why would it matter? If an atheist spoke before the game and said that he hoped the game would be good and that everyone would be safe, I wouldn't care. If a Native-American shaman came out and did a tribal dance that brought safety and good luck to the teams that were playing, it would be a bit weird, but I wouldn't think it was established religion. So what is the issue?

You...you DO know that the answers to your question are readily available on the internet, right?

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:You...you DO know that the answers to your question are readily available on the internet, right?

Because the courts say it, it must be right. The courts are always correct. No mistakes are made.

Galloism wrote:

Timothia wrote:So? If kids in school are so impressionable that they cannot hear a prayer before a football game without being converted, then they shouldn't be near any peer or teacher who has any strong convictions of any kind, either. So long as no money is spent, what is the issue? If people wanted to beg the great fairy godmother for pixie dust and safety before football games, I wouldn't care. Their intentions are good and their prayer means nothing to me: why would it matter? If an atheist spoke before the game and said that he hoped the game would be good and that everyone would be safe, I wouldn't care. If a Native-American shaman came out and did a tribal dance that brought safety and good luck to the teams that were playing, it would be a bit weird, but I wouldn't think it was established religion. So what is the issue?

Mainly we have this thing called a constitution that prohibits government endorsement of religion.

I mean, that's my go-to argument.

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:You...you DO know that the answers to your question are readily available on the internet, right?

Because the courts say it, it must be right. The courts are always correct. No mistakes are made.

Timothia wrote:Endorsement? ENDORSEMENT? Permission to pray means that we are endorsing a certain faith?

Timothia wrote:So if we allow a company to display their cutting-edge technology at a science fair, we are "endorsing" that company? Really? We are simply allowing someone to make statements that people in the crowds would find tasteful and relevant. Just because some people don't agree with these statements doesn't mean that the government is endorsing Christianity.

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:Because the courts say it, it must be right. The courts are always correct. No mistakes are made.

What a beautiful straw man you have there. Would you like to show me saying anything close to that? Or, do you want to go back and read my post. I mean, REALLY read it.

...Actually the problem might be that you read it TOO much. I didn't imply the court was right. You asked a question: what is the issue. I gave you a link so that you could EXPLORE the reasoning over what the issue was. There was nothing in my post saying anything close to what you WANTED me to say so that you could attack a shitty straw man.

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:What a beautiful straw man you have there. Would you like to show me saying anything close to that? Or, do you want to go back and read my post. I mean, REALLY read it.

...Actually the problem might be that you read it TOO much. I didn't imply the court was right. You asked a question: what is the issue. I gave you a link so that you could EXPLORE the reasoning over what the issue was. There was nothing in my post saying anything close to what you WANTED me to say so that you could attack a shitty straw man.

Thanks for your sarcastic link then. I obviously knew what we were talking about, I read the OP and I read the first page's worth of opinions. I'm perfectly aware of what the subject we are discussing. My question might have said "what is the problem" rather than "why is this a problem", but I assumed that you would be able to understand what I meant. Your link failed to answer my implied question "why is this a problem".

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:Thanks for your sarcastic link then. I obviously knew what we were talking about, I read the OP and I read the first page's worth of opinions. I'm perfectly aware of what the subject we are discussing. My question might have said "what is the problem" rather than "why is this a problem", but I assumed that you would be able to understand what I meant. Your link failed to answer my implied question "why is this a problem".

No it doesn't. The link EXPLAINS "why this is a problem." In fact, it's easily answered WITHOUT a link. Why is it a problem? Because people saw it as unconstitutional. It's literally that simple.

Timothia wrote:So if I see lemons as unconstitutional, then they are?

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:So if I see lemons as unconstitutional, then they are?

Hooray, another straw man! I didn't say it's unconstitutional. I said it's a problem. It's a "problem" because someone viewed it as unconstitutional, took it to court, and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

You aren't even trying anymore, are you?

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Hooray, another straw man! I didn't say it's unconstitutional. I said it's a problem. It's a "problem" because someone viewed it as unconstitutional, took it to court, and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

You aren't even trying anymore, are you?

Can you make a point or prove a case? You are really just arguing semantics rather than actually making a point. What do you think and why do you think that? Then I will look at what you believe and argue on the points where they disagree. I've had enough of this "I didn't say why did, I said why does" crap.

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:Can you make a point or prove a case? You are really just arguing semantics rather than actually making a point. What do you think and why do you think that? Then I will look at what you believe and argue on the points where they disagree. I've had enough of this "I didn't say why did, I said why does" crap.

If you've REALLY had enough, then go actually read the link. Seriously. This could have been completely avoided if you'd have read the link instead of pursuing a silly path down translating everything I've said into something you WANT them to say instead of what they actually said.

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:If you've REALLY had enough, then go actually read the link. Seriously. This could have been completely avoided if you'd have read the link instead of pursuing a silly path down translating everything I've said into something you WANT them to say instead of what they actually said.

I went to the link already, I'm not one of those rude people who refuses to click links or pretends to read them but really doesn't. I know what the ruling was and I know what the OP thinks and I know what I think and I know what Ostereuropa thinks: I asked what you think, not what the link says.

And I don't mean to translate anything you say into something else, I'm only looking at what you say as it appears.

Mavorpen wrote:

Timothia wrote:I went to the link already, I'm not one of those rude people who refuses to click links or pretends to read them but really doesn't. I know what the ruling was and I know what the OP thinks and I know what I think and I know what Ostereuropa thinks: I asked what you think, not what the link says.

And I don't mean to translate anything you say into something else, I'm only looking at what you say as it appears.

...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

Timothia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

Merizoc wrote:

Timothia wrote: WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Donut section wrote:Dear Christians, no one can stop you from praying.
Seriously you can do it under your breath and no one will know.
And even if we did know, do you think anyone would care as long as you don't expect them to hear it.
No one is trying to stop you from doing this.
What you need to stop doing is interfering in things that have nothing to do with your faith.
Like everything that isn't on your church grounds.

Timothia wrote:

Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

Timothia wrote:

Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

Timothia wrote:

Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

Timothia wrote:

Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.