'I'll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities, or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanized them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were a woman, crushed their scrotums of they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disemboweled them, hung them, burnt them alive. And you have the nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.'
--Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead
by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
-
Unlearn
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“This is what they said before the speech when talking about the rule to prevent the payers:
"It is up to US to insure this does not go all the way through and to maintain Christianity in our schools."
“This makes the subsequent post-speech love-fest fine-words sound like a hollow sound-bite designed to make them appear noble and avoid criticism for their action which was deliberate and solely intended to promote Christianity and NOT the general freedoms that they subsequently claim to fool the idiotic and the feeble minded.
Isn't there a contradiction?”
Simon,
I don’t think it contradictory to say you want to “maintain Christianity in our schools” by advocating for everyone to have freedom to express personal religious views in schools regardless of religion (so long as it's not threatening, et al.).
I do think it would be contradictory to say you want to maintain “a Christian school” and then say you’re advocating for freedom to express personal religious views in schools.
“If I walk into an Orthodox Jewish Synogogue and start talking about how Jesus is the only way, I may not be 'harming' or 'threatening' anyone, but it would be the ultimate example of bad form.
“Consideration for other's feelings and respect for their beliefs would prohibit me from doing that, no matter how much within my "rights" I thought I was.
“On the other hand, Marvin, from what you've said here I believe you would see no problem with doing that. After all, you can say whatever you want to whomever you want, and as long as you've not physically damaged them, all is fair. Correct?”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
The subject is not about what is appropriate liberty inside a particular house of worship.
The subject is about what is appropriate liberty at a high school graduation ceremony.
Nevertheless, were I inside a Jewish synagogue I would think it highly inappropriate to say anything aloud to the audience without express permission to do so, but I would feel perfectly free to express my personal beliefs to any Jew I approached for conversation. If I were asked to speak to the audience or was otherwise given permission to do so, I would feel it was entirely appropriate to say what I believed in terms of belief because I can’t imagine any other reason I’d be asked to speak to the audience other than to honestly share my views with them.
“The point is you pre-supposed what that Muslim boy may…”
Wrong.
I asserted what an Orthodox Muslim would likely make of a recitation of the lords prayer and a statement agreeing to it on the basis of what Orthodox Muslims believe. It is not presupposition to apply what is known of a particular orthodoxy to a set subject.
“Also, you may notice my illustration was about Orthodox Jews, NOT Orthodox Muslims. Double FAIL!”
My words you respond to with that statement (at your post 752) is said of my comment at my post 2761 in response to your comments at your post 748. This part of our dialogue was of an Orthodox Muslim kid who might have been in the audience. It was not about an Orthodox Jew.
“So Marvin ... before vs after quote comments.
“I presume you're now ignoring it and attempting to 'run down the clock' on posts to avoid answering it?”
No. I’m trying to respond to several requests and it takes time. I have the added complication of spending time trying to bundle responses to answer as many questions as I can before my newly reduced posting limit is reached. I’ve never had this complication before. It’s new to me.
Marvin Shilmer
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Marvin: I don’t see anything threatening to Jews, Muslims, Atheists or anyone else by a graduate student quoting the lords prayer and stating agreement with it, and that is what was done that’s at issue.
----
And that is exactly your brain-block, Marvin.
Because YOU see nothing threatening about it, then all the Jews, Muslims and atheists can just suck it up, right?
You see only yourself in virtually every argument you make. I find it amusingly ironic (but not suprising) that the atheists and religiously neutral individuals here show more empathy and respect for other people's sensitivities, even religious ones, than the Christians do.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"
-Mahatma Ghandi
-
ÁrbolesdeArabia
Marvin do you have a MBA or MS in Science? You are so darn smart, I figured you must have graduated in the top of your class brother! I enjoy your posting, thank's Marvin!
DNCMS and Simon, you two are other super-brains I enjoy reading your postings too! You all rock!
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Nevertheless, were I inside a Jewish synagogue I would think it highly inappropriate to say anything aloud to the audience without express permission to do so,
---
You mean, similar to how the valedictorian had an agreement to stick to his pre-approved speech but went off topic?
Or, by "permission" do you mean as long as YOU agreed with the restrictions you'd feel it appropriate to honor them?
If permission was not granted, would you steamroll your Jewish audience anyway, like this Christian kid did to his audience?
I imagine lying to your Jewish audience would also be acceptable, if it promoted a "greater good", yes?
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“And that is exactly your brain-block, Marvin.
“Because YOU see nothing threatening about it, then all the Jews, Muslims or atheists can just suck it up, right?
“You see only yourself in virtually every argument you make. I find it amusingly ironic (but not suprising) that the atheists and religiously neutral individuals here show more empathy and respect for other people's sensitivities, even religious ones, than the Christians do”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
In the world I live in people share their views for the purpose of helping people understand a different viewpoint.
Because I don’t see a particular threat neither means I don’t want to see it nor that I refuse to see it. It only means I don’t see it. By engaging someone with a view contrary to my own I’m inviting that person to help me see what they think I don’t see. I do this because I love to learn. I do this for the precise reason that I do not hold my own subjective views paramount to others. My subjective views are no more and no less than that; subjective.
- I’ve confessed that I see no threat in what Ron Costner said during his graduation speech.
- I’ve also confessed that had a Jew, Muslim or atheist expressed their personal belief in a similarly innocuous way (e.g., quote some “holy” text and stating agreement with it) I would see no threat in it.
If you think it a threat for a high school graduate to recite the biblical lords prayer and state agreement with it then please spell out precisely what is that threat to you?
What is this threat? Either in qualitative or quantifiable terms please tell me exactly what is this threat to you that you see.
That’s what I’m trying to see from your perspective.
“You mean, similar to how the valedictorian had an agreement to stick to his pre-approved speech but went off topic?
“Or, by "permission" do you mean as long as YOU agreed with the restrictions you'd feel it appropriate to honor them?
“If permission was not granted, would you steamroll your Jewish audience anyway, like this Christian kid did to his audience?”
What you posit above is a fallacious extended analogy.
You’re talking about entirely different environments.
One is public with governmental control.
The second is at best semi-private (and maybe private) and completely aside from governmental control (except crime).
The control I think my government should have is one thing.
The control I think a semi-private (or private) group should have is something else entirely.
“I imagine lying to your Jewish audience would also be acceptable, if it promoted a "greater good", yes?”
This issue for me is not whether Ron Costner lied. That’s a sideshow.
The issue for me is whether individuals have an unalienable liberty to express their belief system so long as it poses no threat to others. Specifically this is in relation to public events and not those of semi-private or private environments.
Marvin Shilmer
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
The subject is not about what is appropriate liberty inside a particular house of worship.
The subject is about what is appropriate liberty at a high school graduation ceremony
---
synogogue or church = "religion"
high school = "secular"
You contradicted your own position (again).
People do not go to any function at a secular venue to be a captive audience to religious fundamentalists.
I do not hold my own subjective views paramount to others.
You contradicted your own position (again).
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“synogogue or church = "religion"
“high school = "secular"
“You contradicted your own position (again).”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I don’t see where you’ve pointed out any contradiction by me.
- It’s not the religious aspect of a church or synagogue that makes this subject what it is.
- It’s not the secular aspect of a public school event that makes this subject what it is.
It’s governmental reach that’s at issue, and whether it should prohibit personal expression of belief at public events that poses no threat to anyone.
“People do not go to any function at a secular venue to be a captive audience to religious fundamentalists.”
First, I don’t read fundamentalism into recitation of a short text accompanied by statement of agreement.
- The only thing I am forced to see in such an act is that the speaker is stating an agreement with whatever it is he’s just cited or quoted, which in this instance is a biblical text.
- This makes the statement at issue a religious statement but not necessarily a statement of fundamentalism.
Second, a speech by the local valedictorian should reasonably include mention of what compelled that person to achieve what they have academically. Hence if the graduate was compelled by some special teacher I expect to hear this, and I understand it in that context. Some graduates hold that their belief system was/is a paramount force leading to their achievement, and I understand this in that context when I hear it from a graduate in speech. Because it’s reasonable to expect a valedictorian to include what compelled them as they see it, I think it’s backward thinking to prohibit this statement of belief. That is, so long as it represents no threat to anyone.
Third, it is a slippery slope for a government to invoke a prohibition against innocuous expression of personal belief in a publicly sanctioned event. It is for no little importance that framers of the US Constitution expressed liberties exercising speech and religion.
“You contradicted your own position (again).”
That sort of unexplained remark is the kind of nebulous response that communicates nothing at all to me. If you see a contradiction and take time to assert one exists then why not go ahead and state in precise terms what is the contradiction you assert?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
Marvin: whether it is threatening or not isn't the issue - that's a red-herring that you've thrown in. Now you're going round and round in circles and frankly it's annoying and wastes everyone's time. I have to say I find you a most incredibly annoying person to converse with.
The fact remains, they are adding religion where it doesn't have a place and doing it under the bogus and dishonest guise of standing up for freedoms when the reality is they are concerned about pushing Christianity alone. All the other claims you make are just smoke and mirrors to distract attention from this basic fact.
That you can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem - it simply means you miss something that many other people don't. Go attend their church if you want to hear their religious views, but don't insist that we have to listen to them and try and make out that we somehow lack some insights or are less appreciative of intelligence because we don't want to.
-
Simon
It is for no little importance that framers of the US Constitution expressed liberties exercising speech and religion.
If you mean the 1st amendment, it's actually politican expression that was protected. There was meant to be a clear separation of church and state specifically to protect us from just this sort of nonsense and the religious taking over.
By all means, worship and pray to whatever god you want ... at home, at your church ... no one is going to stop you unless you're doing something illegal or cruel.
But it should stay there and the rest of us should not have to listen to it at a non-religious event. Making people listen to it is rude and as we've seen, only accomplished through dishonesty. If nothing else it's simply unfair unless you give everyone the same platform.
I don't give a damn whether you want to listen to it or not, you can do whatever the hell you like but WE should be entitled to liberty and freedom from nonsense and superstitions and how dare you suggest otherwise or belittle people who don't want to listen to it. If you think you'll learn something from them ... by all means, go visit their church, listen to them tell you the lords prayer ... again ... and again. Call it something noble like research but I'll call it what it is - pointless.
History is piled high with the corpses of those who've died because of the superstitious self-righteous crap that peddlers of fear, biggotry and hatred have imposed on those who simply desired freedom of thought and who fought for the understanding and knowledge that you seem to think is some personal badge of honour. I find your glib attitude that they are somehow the oppressed sickening and vile to listen to.