Mississippi School Forces Students To Listen To Christian Lecture, Teachers Block Exi
- Thread starter Sal
- Start date
~
It is not a CHRISTIAN country, it is a FREE country with religious freedom.
Nobody is saying the Christians can't give the lectures. What they cannot do is lock those who don't want to hear in a room
My experience shows me that there are really very, very few actual atheists, most people who are either self-identified or otherwise named as atheists are really agnostic and those who are either agnostic or atheist are rarely inclined to discuss religious views unless prompted by a religious person trying to convert them.
Those lectures are not denied, they are just to take place in a church or other venue with voluntary attendance, not a state run school.
I like retired_can_soldier. I didn't mean to make an argument of it. If you look at what happened, you will see the whole thing blew up in my face. Well, I'm no social genius, that is for sure.
I think you are missing the point. It is one thing to teach people about Christianity, it is another thing to force them to stay in an auditorium where they are repeatedly told that the only way to find hope is through accepting Christianity. That is not education about what Christianity means.
And this in a country that has written in to its constituting document that it is a secular country. That has made historical proclamations to other nations that it is not, despite your assertions, that it is not a Christian country. See the Treaty of Tripoli, if you have any doubt.
Yes, historically there have been a plethora of Christians, but at one point there were a majority of people accepting slavery. Is it therefore a slaver nation?
Who was locked in against their will? Since when did kids start paying attention and hanging on every word spoken by a lecturer?
Did you read the story? They herded kids into an assembly and then had teachers guard the doors so nobody could leave. Is that not essentially being locked in?
Yup. They spoke at assemblies which are mandatory. Nobody can come and go from any assembly. It's been that way forever.
Who said locked in? Attendance was mandatory. You can read the case to see what they did to enforce attendance.
Yes, all people possess the ability to ignore something that they are forced to sit through. Since when was this a defense against violating the establishment clause?
Yeah. Assemblies are mandatory. I had to sit through quite a few, that I didn't want to attend. Did I agree with every topic? Did I listen? Did I give a sh*t about the football team?
What is your point? If the assembly presented pornographic images to children, would that be legal? Of course not. If the assembly presented pornographic images to children and some of those children tried to leave but the teachers forced them to stay, would that compound the legal difficulties of the teachers? Of course it would.
Now are you following that argument? Because it is just as illegal to force children to listen to religious indoctrination propaganda as it is to force them to view pornographic images.
Pornography is illegal for anyone under 18. Religion isn't illegal and there are no age restrictions.
Students shouldn't be allowed to make speeches or voice opinions during the "open mic" portion of an assembly?
It's not faculty that is speaking nor is it curriculum, it's open expression.
20 years ago they ditched the Lord's Prayer so Eugene could fit and nobody could express who they are Religiously.
Now even Eugene or Akhbar can get up on the stage at open mic and discuss Judaism or Islam with his classmates openly.
Some people call that ability to express yourself freedom.
Students shouldn't be allowed to make speeches or voice opinions during the "open mic" portion of an assembly?
It's not faculty that is speaking nor is it curriculum, it's open expression.
20 years ago they ditched the Lord's Prayer so Eugene could fit and nobody could express who they are Religiously.
Now even Eugene or Akhbar can get up on the stage at open mic and discuss Judaism or Islam with his classmates openly.
Some people call that ability to express yourself freedom.
Students should be allowed to make speeches and say what ever they want to others who
want to hear the message. For those who do not want to hear the message they should be
allowed to leave and go back to class or wait in the hall. To use a school assembly to force
children or anyone else to listen to a message of doctrine is bullying at best or using the
school administrators to force people to remain against their will is also a questionable
practice.
The Muslims force children to listen to that stuff in their belief system and we say what are
they doing to young minds? Same holds true for any religion. I remember as a kid going
to church every Sunday mass actually. Some stuff was interesting some was a load of
you know what. I would leave. When I was younger I couldn't and I regard that as abuse.
You build an aversion to the listening to that stuff.
Today the only time I go to a church is for a funeral, or a wedding.
want to hear the message. For those who do not want to hear the message they should be
allowed to leave and go back to class or wait in the hall. To use a school assembly to force
children or anyone else to listen to a message of doctrine is bullying at best or using the
school administrators to force people to remain against their will is also a questionable
practice.
The Muslims force children to listen to that stuff in their belief system and we say what are
they doing to young minds? Same holds true for any religion. I remember as a kid going
to church every Sunday mass actually. Some stuff was interesting some was a load of
you know what. I would leave. When I was younger I couldn't and I regard that as abuse.
You build an aversion to the listening to that stuff.
Today the only time I go to a church is for a funeral, or a wedding.
*sigh* it is the article
frig this OP has been giant pain in my **** starting yesterday with CS, I didn't write the effing thing...
the next thread I start I am going to put a freakin' disclaimer on it : this may or may not reflect the views of the poster...
Whose CS?
I think the initial confusion was your lack of use when it came to the quote feature Sal. I initially took some of the comments made by the blogger as yours, because they were mixed in with your post. It's okay, I won't hold it against you, all you need it to apologize in written form to all members of CanCon for creating such scuttle butt and setting fire to a thread riddled with controversy. Once we receive our formal apology, notarized of course, and written with each individuals feelings in mind (so no cc) I'm sure we can move past this.
frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrig you can make me laugh even when you irritate me....lol
diclaimer: the above post may or may not reflect my feelings 20 seconds from now...depends on how the wine goes down....
think of it as a rhetorical answer...8O
is that even possible?