 |
|
|
|
|
January 13th, 2012
10:07 PM ET
Pastors protest New York ban on religious servicesBy Vivienne Foley, CNN "Throughout our history, schools have been used for all kinds of community service, including church service. Why, all of a sudden, they want to make it a crime?" asked Pastor Peter Kemp of Hope Chapel Church. More than 200 people attended the protest outside a Bronx public school where Bloomberg was giving his annual State of the City address. For two hours, protesters sang hymns, prayed and chanted "Freedom of worship!" while holding signs reading "Save the Church, Save the Community!" and "Closing Churches Embarrasses NYC!" Pastor Jon Storck of Grace Fellowship Church said, "It's not just for us. It's for our communities that we minister in. We offer so much in the neighborhood, and we offer so much to the school that we meet in. The school doesn't want us to leave." Storck was arrested for disorderly conduct along with 43 other people who linked arms in groups of five and left the secure, barricaded area to pray on the street, ignoring police warnings. Jeremy Del Rio of 20/20 Vision for Schools believes that the ban will hurt low-income communities where most of the 68 congregations affected by the ban are located. "Mayor Bloomberg believes that children in New York City can't tell the difference between the church that rents the building on Sundays and the academic instruction that takes place Monday through Friday. New York is smarter than that. Our children are smarter than that. They know the difference." The mayor's office declined comment. The Department of Education announced the ban in December after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on a lower court decision that the state of New York has the right to ban religious groups from using public property. Jordan Lorence, an attorney from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been fighting the policy for two decades, said that all legal avenues had been exhausted and that the only way to stop the ban was for Bloomberg to use his executive authority to change the Board of Education policy and allow religious groups to rent space in public schools. "We benefit the community. Why can't we meet like everybody else? Why do you think that empty school buildings are better than having churches that are helping poor people that are helping people get off drugs, get out of crime and tutoring students of all faiths?" David Garcia, a former gang member who now Ministers at the House of Worship Christian Center, believes that troubled kids will be the ones most hurt by the ban: "In schools there's a lot of violence going on. There's a lot of killing. Gang slayings and all of that. And we are trying to make a difference in the schools. If they open the doors to other people to borrow the schools, why can't they lend the schools to the churches?" On behalf of the Department of Education, the New York Law Department provided a statement defending the policy: "We view this as a victory for the City's school children and their families. The Department was quite properly concerned about having any school in this diverse City identified with one particular religious belief or practice."
« Previous entryMy Take: Momma’s boy Tim Tebow meets playboy Tom Brady
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Are you sure you want to live in a broke, Godless, and totally desperate world?
Praying about it won't do anything. Tell me, is your 'god' omniscient?? yes or no .. just a one word answer
Well Broke is not an issue of being with God or not believing he exist. Lots of poor on both sides and lots of rich on both sides.
Great move. Now we just have to get the ho'mophobic Boy Scouts out. As far as "broke bla bla bla..." goes. This country is already the laughing stock of the world re it's education system. God ain't gonna help that problem. (If he would have, why did he let it get so bad ?).
>>>"This country is already the laughing stock of the world re its education system. God ain't gonna help that problem"
To easy Timmy, the 700 Club crew part of our side will just point to the decline of God in the classroom and say that the decline in our education system paralleled such. So God isn't going to help where he or she is not wanted.
Not wanted?
So all those Christian students praying for help will get the old heave-ho from "god", eh?
Well, too bad for them. They should have been born rich so their parents could send them to a religious school.
"God" hates poor people, sick people, amputees, Jews, Muslims, aw heck he hates everyone because he refuses to speak to anybody I guess.
Pretty sad when your "god" is always pouting and refusing to do anything or talk to anybody, isn't it?
Prayer changes things
Let us pray America back to God
Godless sounds pretty good to me, yeah! I do want to live in that world, and I already do.
Ironicus, you've got it backwards (as usual for a spiritually dead atheist). God loves everyone, but not everyone loves God.
Amen.
HS, since your fake "god" doesn't even exist, I guess that makes you a crazy person.
How's that working for you and your cats?
This is only happening because the Zionists wish to push more and more people into athiesm and out of the truth of God. I hope they do not succeed. Just from reading this blog, I can see that the Anti-Christ has many, many unwitting followers who have been fooled by the Devil into believing there is no God. I hope that one day you all come to your senses, and realize that without God, there is no Good.
ummm... how can one be a Zionist AND an Atheist?
Because Zionists are not necessarily Jewish. They are everywhere. They own the American media, they own the American banking system, AIPAC is their front, with the SPLC as their lapdog. One does not need to be religious to be a Zionist, one just has to be power hungry and willing to harm others to achieve power.
ohhh.. you mean like the Catholic church and the theocracies in the Middle east .. ok gotcha.. Yea .. see what religion does ... all in the name of some imaginary sky-daddy, who is nothing but just one of the thousands of 'gods' invented by man over the course of human history. No god has ever, EVER been shown to exist .... and in time yours shall also be relegated to the realm of mythology. Just because you have some little moldy book that tells you it's true, does not make it true.
The origins of morality in human cultures are not religion. You would know that if you had ever taken even one Anthropology course. Come back after you get an education.
Actually, a lot of the problems even with the Church of Rome is the zionist infestation in the vatican. Again, Zionists are not religious, they are power hungry. While I know you athiests are trained to spit your venomous, evil, negative vitriol whenever someone mentions truth, but I do wish that some of you would open your eyes and see, instead of just blindly listening to the devil.
What a frightening position, GodistheWay. How dare you have such audacity? How dare you claim to know all the answers and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I wonder how you would react to your exact words in another person's mouth but advocating a different god than you suppose?
@momoya frightening? how so? The answers I have are easily found, and while I spent years on my research, other people have found the same within months. I've gone through athiesm, agnosticism, wicca, old school paganism, and eventually wound up finding and feeling the love of God. But this has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the fact that as Americans, we must, MUST get the Zionists out of any kind of power within the United States if we want to save our home.
Prove it, or get out of my way.
It would seem with all the spouting that 'godistheway' is doing, he/she/it must think it's 1933 again and wants to be the new Chancellor of Germany. You complain that 'Zionists' are power hungry. By your OWN little book of fairy tales, your 'god' is the most power hungry of all. "Worship me praise me or I will punish you forever" Yeah, that's really going to get people to show love isn't it? You do not need a bible to justify love, but no greater tool has ever been invented to justify someone's hate. You DO know that no one, NO ONE, had a concept of 'hell' until X-tianity reared its ugly head. Not the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, Native Americans ... no one. Just a way to control the uneducated, illiterate agri-based societies of 2000 years ago. Guess what .. we can read, we can THINK, we have learned to learn. Must really tick you off that people can now think for themselves, go against your grain, and break the yoke of religion from around their throats.
Yep, I've got @GodisthWay exactly where I want him - hehhehehheh 😈
Oooh, look out! It's the DEVIL making me an atheist. Only problem is, I don't believe in him either.
"we must, MUST get the Zionists out of any kind of power within the United States if we want to save our home."
Isn't that pretty much what nazi Germany advocated? 'cause that turned out so well.
Mirosal, you posted "ohhh.. you mean like the Catholic church and the theocracies in the Middle east .. ok gotcha.. Yea .. see what religion does ... all in the name of some imaginary sky-daddy, who is nothing but just one of the thousands of 'gods' invented by man over the course of human history. No god has ever, EVER been shown to exist .... and in time yours shall also be relegated to the realm of mythology. Just because you have some little moldy book that tells you it's true, does not make it true."
Answer: There is a difference about Jesus' truth and the RCC you complain about. Jesus' truth will continue long after you stop sucking up oxygen.
Amen.
@enjaysea: I have no need to prove anything. You come forth with the accusation of there being no God. In any good court of law (which is based off of logic and evidence), the accuser bears the burden of proof. Therefore, start producing it or get out of God's way.
@Mirosal: you are quite incorrect. Of the ones you listed, only the Native Americans had no concept of an underworld. The Greeks had both their underworld and the God of it named Hades. The Romans copied the Greeks and just changed some names. The Bible teaches love and acceptance, not hatred or violence. Those who practice such and try to use the bible and God as an excuse are NOT following God's law under Jesus Christ.
@EnjaySea: That's what he wants. If you don't learn to recognize his false and vile works, he will continue to corrupt your soul with secularist nonsense until you cannot accept God.
@hellbent: Hitler was a diseased and corrupted soul. I would never approve the murder of ANYONE. The Zionists already have complete political control if Israel. Just ship them back there, and seize their American assets and resell them to loyal Americans instead of Zionists.
@Mirosal: you are quite incorrect. Of the ones you listed, only the Native Americans had no concept of an underworld. The Greeks had both their underworld and the God of it named Hades. The Romans copied the Greeks and just changed some names.
Actually GITW – YOU are incorrect! The Greeks and Romans believed that ALL souls went to Hades when the human died. There wre different levels of Hades, depending on how badly you might have ticked off the gods. If you made them angry, but were a good person, they could still send you to Tartarus.
Separation of Church and State is a law that is not practiced. The various forms of Governments today are trying to make a distinction between the two, but find it difficult to separate because the two have been in bed together for so long its hard to really separate. "God Bless America" "In God We Trust" "In God is Our Trust" "One Nation Under God". These expressions have been adopted by the U.S. Government and many more practices such as swearing on the Bible in courts. Many have pointed out the hypocrisy of this and that's why there is so much heated discussion. But really Religion and Government cannot coexist as separate because both demand exclusive devotion. God demands his worship, and Government, at least the U.S. government demands "Allegiance to the Flag". A well known historical figure said it well, You can't serve two masters, for either he will hate the one or love the other, or stick to the one and despise the other.
So by putting "In God We Trust" on our money now makes it okay to worship money. Okay. Got it.
Putting "In God We Trust" on money is advertisement. Its helps spread the message to everyone it literally comes into contact with that, this is a reminder, as a Nation we are looking to God for answers. If the Government was serious about separating church and state they would adopt and endorse another motto!
One nation under god was added by religious zeolots, like you, in the 1950's. They won their campaign to get it inserted into the pledge to further indoctrinate our children. That doesn't make us a christian nation. That makes us a nation afraid of christians.
One nation under God was added not by zealots but by the greatest generation. The phrase was welcomed by those that understood the responsibility behind freedom of speech,and was welcomed by them and those who came before. The phrase as well as in God we trust was commonly accepted as American values for over 200 years
The phrase was added because Sen. Joe McCarthy was good at exploiting the fears of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War. And what happened to HIM? Oh, he was censured by the Senate, sat in the back, and died from alcoholism a couple of years later. Gee what a role model!!!
McCarthy wore ladies' underwear.
Fact!
You're probably right .. him and J. Edgar traded outfits lol ... they looked to be about the same size. From the movie "The American President" ... "He is interested in two things and two things only .. making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." McCarthy saw the fear in 1949 when the USSR tested their first nuke, and learned how to exploit that fear.
Ah this is so funny! The people who are bashing Religion have no clue as to how intertwined State and Church are. Also think about how many people are to stand and recite the National Anthem at many sports Arena confirming in that song, " And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"" and the coinage of currency "In God We Trust". Of all the Lawmakers and Presidents we had, do you honestly think they were able to keep their Religious beliefs and convictions separate from Governmental Ideas? Absolutely not!
Timmy: not "able to keep". "should have kept" and "should keep". Bashy bashy yourself, boy.
Tim – the National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner's first verse that is recognized as the offical National Anthem) doesn't mention god...
MILLIONS TO BE ASSASSINATED FOR THE SAKE OF $$$ LIABILITIES(mk-ultra, chip implants, electroshocks etc. performed on them) AND NEW WORLD ORDER(multiculturalism = terrorism) POLITICAL AGENDA KNOWN AS "YOU ARE NEXT"(financial liabilities are 2 expensive for the government and it is cheaper to get read of you instead) !!! IF YOU WERE TREATED WITH ELECTROSHOCKS OR DRUGS USED FOR WIPING OUT MEMORY(numerous Americans and Europeans were and are) AFTER ENDURING FORCED CHIP IMPLANTS(exactly how BRAIN CANCER and homeless people are produced), YOU ARE SCHEDULED NEXT !!!
NOW YOU KNOW WHAT ORWELLIAN UNITED STATES CONGRESS(USSR#2 which consists of lawyers or what are liars and physicians as well as family member of health efected individuals...Why lawyers !!? So crime per physicians OR WHAT IS HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION can get away with it) AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS WORLDWIDE ARE SOOO BUSY WITH WHEN PLAYING/CLOWNING(acting) IN FRONT OF CAMERAS ONLY HOW SOMETHING HAVE TO BE DONE(deliberately omitting/delaying facts of genocide as seen on this complain) NO DIFFERENT FROM ROMNEY'S FATHER WHO EXCELLED AFTER GM WAS DELIBERATELY SCREWED/BANKRUPT(LIKE AMERICA TODAY = success based on deliberate sabotage = known as grand treason) !!!
http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/
LEARN TRUTH ABOUT UNITED NATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS NEW WORLD ORDER(MULTICULTURALISM = TERRORISM) GOVERNMENTS(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) !!! NOT THERE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, BUT TO DENY YOUR RIGHT TO EXISTENCE !!!
ABDUCTIONS / FORCED BRAIN CHIP IMPLANTS / BLACKLISTING / FORCEFUL UNEMPLOYMENT / MK-ULTRA BRAINWASHING AGAINST WHITE(under "NAZI" lie) CIVILIAN POPULATION TODAY IN 2011/2012 ACROSS THE EUROPE AND NORTHERN AMERICA !!!
http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/
WHY TO ACCEPT LIABILITIES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WHEN WE CAN SIMPLY ASSASSINATE OUR VICTIMS(YOU) THANKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FREE PRESS/MEDIA(most severe censorship of genocide ever !!!)!! Related to WHITES NO LONGER WELCOME IN AMERICA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGfYOAydjw
OR
http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE RECORDED LIVE IN 2009 !!! EXILING WHITES(US citizens) WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE AND IMPORTING NON WHITES IMMIGRATION REQUIREMENTS FREE !!!
Isn't it sad when meds are so hard to come by?
You collect for his Meds co-pay on the Atheist side and I will collect on the Faithful side.
Oh, I wouldn't want to appear to be a fascist in forcing medication on this guy. But you go ahead. Republicans are good for that.
Ecch... No just help to pay the copay. Not going to force his medication. He might overdose, become unconscious and some Democrat will want to Euthanize him or form a committee to convince his family to, so they can give his name to an illegal alien to vote for Obama.
😀
lol
From the article:
"Pastors and their congregants took to the streets of New York on Thursday..."
Mayor Bloomberg was perfectly right. But, where was the pepper spray and rubber bullets? What's good enough for the 99 percent, is good enough for Christians!
There is a separation of church and state, people. This is not a Christian Nation. Hell, I'll go you one better! The Christian god is very unlikely to exist. His demigod son, a myth.
Good job Bloomberg!
Just say no to idiot Christians!
Cheers!
>>>"Mayor Bloomberg was perfectly right. But, where was the pepper spray and rubber bullets?"
Did they riot? Funny that the 99% had many Christians. Do you want the government to automatically pepper spray and fire rubber bullets into any protest?
.... hmm... and the nation celebrates Martin Luther (protester) King's birthday on Monday....
... Or do we only want the Government to do that to groups we do not like.
Also, Occupy London Davey..... Remember the Church protected the protesters...
@Mark from wherever AKA moral compass
I don't aspire to be a better person. I don't like religion. I think it is detrimental to society. This distaste for religion, is not based on any group of people.
The separation of church and state must be defended.
Cheers!
Cheers!
>>>"I don't aspire to be a better person."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps
L'Chaim
What is it with people using videos like its some kind of argument?
Do you hate typing that much?
Hey christards, you mad now?
No Hitchling... not really that mad 🙂
@Ironicus – "One of my public grade-school teachers was a Catholic..."
That's interesting...during class in third grade my teacher stated, "God is just something people made up to explain things they didn't understand." Of course I agree with her, but at the time she risked being fired for the assertion.
That sort of thing is why I would prefer to see logic and rational thinking taught to kids. The earlier the better.
And I would hazard a guess that that teacher was almost fired because for religious reasons and not legal ones.
Prayer changes things
Prayer changes law
Prayer changes licence
Prayer changes life
Prayer sets captives free
(only for the "newbies")
Free Will and Future are inherent to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, it is not possible to alter life with prayers. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variability/randomness of Nature..
So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping/revering cows, blowing your Moroni horns or bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the proper rules of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings
When encountering a reality post do not read or respond hit report abuse it is all bull sh it
@Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things
According to the National Institutes of Health, the symptoms of schizophrenia include Hallucinations.
"Hallucinations are things a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel. "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices. The voices may talk to the person about his or her behavior, order the person to do things, or warn the person of danger." See: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/schizophrenia/what-are-the-symptoms-of-schizophrenia.shtml
Prayer, when "answered" is indistinguishable from one of the key symptoms of schizophrenia.
One major difference you might have missed. Answered prayer changes the course of human history for the better.
Ram a bible up your @$$.
According to a quote form jesus Christ in the bible. Prayer has the power to transport mountains into the sea. Pleases list all mountains that have ever been moved in this way.
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true
It is written...
@ An inconvenient truth:” Answered prayer changes the course of human history for the better.”
Please list 10 events in the course of human history that have been changed for the better by prayer. Include verifiable evidence the event was changed by prayer and not something else. Quotations from a 2000 year old book of sadistic fairy tales do not count as evidence of anything.
Apparently, God isn't listening to Incontinent Liar, because if he were, then we'd have no famine, no genocide, no race wars, no suicides, no children dying of cancer.
Why isn't your 'god' answering your prayers, Incontinent?
Or are you praying only for people you like?
Lets start with the slave trade, changed by prayer. William Wilberforce, John Newton. John Newton a captain on a slave ship, transformed by prayer and prayer alone mid ocean in the very act of transporting human cargo.
Inconvenient: "John Newton a captain on a slave ship, transformed by prayer and prayer alone mid ocean"
Nope. That was totally due to my wishing upon a star.
@An inconvenient truth – "Lets start with the slave trade, changed by prayer."
Are you out of your mind?! The Atlantic slave trade was brought to an end by the American Civil War, which resulted in the death of more than 600,000. Your assertion that the slave trade was "changed by prayer" is profoundly idiotic and repulsive.
Prove the slave trade was ended by prayer and not by law.
If there WERE a god who answered prayers, why don't you possess a brain or the ability to use it?
Prayer was the motivation, law was enacted years in some cases (William Wilberforce) a lifetime later. Prayer formed the foundation that finally ended slavery in the United States. Men and women of prayer were motivated to pursue freedom for all Americans. Prayer was the foundation of the Reverend Martin Luther King that resulted in the civil rights movement.
Really-O, you really do not know what you are talking about. The American civil war was only one small part of the global slave trade. Global means world wide. John Newton was English.
You referenced the following: ""Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS).
But did Jesus really utter said words? As per the studies of many contemporary NT scholars, he did not.
e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?t-itle=069_Faith_and_Mountain (remove the hyphen from t-itle if you want to access the wep page and Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 78-79.
The latter comments were for TR6.
@Inconvenient Truth
Logic 101 : The fact that "A" follows "B", in no way proves "A" to be the causal agent of "B".
@just sayin – Regarding: "The American civil war was only one small part of the global slave trade."
You are, of course, correct...both Wilberforce and Newton were British abolitionists. My response to "An inconvenient truth" was with regard to his assertion regarding prayer being responsible for the abolition of slavery. I was not directly addressing his assertion regarding Wilberforce and Newton. The ambiguity and poor construction are my fault. That said, the British Empire abolishing slavery was the result of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Claiming that it was the result of prayer is, once again, profoundly idiotic and repulsive.
@An inconvenient truth / Atheism is not healthy / and all others in the "prayer changes things" camp
Do you have anything more that assertions? Perhaps some evidence for your claims? I claim you are wrong and that while prayer may benefit the one who prays, there is no good evidence it has any other effect. Here's the conclusion from a meta-analysis published in a peer-reviewed medical journal:
Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP (distant intercessory prayer) as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
Volume 32, Number 1, 21-26, DOI: 10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3
Prayer works.
Except in the case of the thousands of parents who prayed for their starving children today, and watched them die instead.
Oh well, those parents probably deserved it, because they didn't believe in Jesus. Go John 3:16!
enjaysea What have YOU done today to ease the suffering of the earths starving children? Let me guess you are not your brothers keeper. Feeding the hungry is our responsibility. When one person dies of starvation we all are guilty of neglect. God provided the resources for us to get the job done and instructed us to do it. What have you done?
@Just Sayin, all you did there was to prove my point. When prayer works, we credit god. When prayer doesn't work, somehow it's all our fault. If god is powerful, as the stories suggest, then he has the power to make it so that everyone has enough to eat.
Either he doesn't have the power, or does but doesn't use it, or he doesn't exist. I'm leaning towards the latter.
no one proved your point because you have no point.You use the suffering of innocents to your sick advantage and abdicate your God given responsibility in the matter of caring for the needy and suffering.
@Just Sayin. I was in Jamaica two weeks ago, and I was literally handing out money to people on the street, because they were poor, and I had money to give.
Of course it's our fault that people are starving! That happens to be my point, and you seem to agree with me. My point is that god has not one single thing to do with it, that it is our responsibility, and there's no point waiting for an impotent deity to help us, when all we've got is ourselves. My point is that prayer doesn't work. Pointing your finger at me didn't convince me otherwise.
So, Reality, I guess I should have just lived with my fused bones like the surgeons said instead of spending just an hour in prayer for 3 days & being healed in hours. Excuse me if I prefer God who cares about me & answers me when human science fails me. I have multiple sets of X-rays proving I am right to believe. The schools are the ultimate losers here. This will force them to return any money already advanced & prevent them from receiving the extra funds. It is nothing more than an empty space when school is not in session. Bloomburg will also find that empty buildings are more prone to vandals. A pyrric victory.
Really Jersey,
Please give the published references noting your "miracle" cure.
Why has NY allowed this garbage in the first place. First it's called serperation of chruch and state. Second they already get tax exempt sanctuaries. Also I disagree with the commit eariler that we shouldn't teach mythology in school, it's still learning. Haven't you heard the phrase learn from your past mistakes. I want the bible taught just like King Aurther and Homer's the Oddessy. Right along with the kabbalah, the koran, the book of mormons, a mix of all the hindu scriptures, battlefied earth, shinto scriptures, the life of buddah, the teachings of confucis etc... but not taught as fact and right after science class where they learn Darwin's theory of evolution, watch videos on the big bang theory, have a field trip where they meet up with an archeologist to uncover one of our ancestors remains that weren't as evolved, learn how old the earth truely is etc..... I want to stop the next generation from actually worshipping fictional characters that were thought up by men who couldn't even pass a third grade mathmatics quiz. I was hopeing after I read the bible at 14 and then studing other religions that the younger generations would wise up. Now I'm in my late 20's and it breaks my heart when younger people and teens come up to me asking if I ever heard of Jesus Christ (like I never lived in the USA). I am betting lack of education on that one and lack of actually reading religious scripture.
Welcome to America the land of the christards.
Religions have their own non-taxable forums. They should use those and stop inflicting themselves on the rest of us or pay a proper rent instead of chiselling everyone to spread their particular brand of koolaid.
Will Bloomberg be giving back the rental money?
By law they now have to refund every church that paid a rental in advance. The schools will have to take that money out of their operating budgets. Great going mayor dipstick!
Great news. A small step for enlightenment and reason over the silly supersti.tions of religion. Schools are for learning, not dispensing or promoting mythology. Iron Age, Middle Eastern mythology should, at best, be taught as a subject in sociology, not as reality.
I'm sure there are enough astrologers' officers and tarot card readers in New York for the Bible-cuddlers to do their praying and chanting there.
It makes economic sense for schools to be rented out to responsible parties when not being used for schooling. This brings in finances for the school system and reduces energy use over organizations having to construct their own buildings. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech should mean there is no discrimination for or against a group because of what it is teaching.
Economic sense? You have GOT to be kidding me!
Those school rooms are set up for teaching public school students.
They are not "conference rooms" to be rented out on demand!
Why aren't these private individuals clamoring for rental space elsewhere?
Why insist on putting public property to private use when private groups can go rent a room ANYWHERE?
I'll tell you why: It's because these groups are religious and they want to violate the Constltution and try to set a legal precedent by which they can continue their illegal activities in other public areas.
No other private group is demanding school property for their private use. Only religious groups are insisting on this.
It appears to me that they have been brainwashed to think that "prayers" have been "banned" when they actually haven't....and have been fooled into thinking that using illegal encroachment against the First Amendment is a way to counter this false idea and give them a "victory" for "Jesus" or something equally insane.
No other group is clamoring for school rooms in which to do private activities.
If they want cheap places where they can express their religion, let them seek it in the "free market" and quit trying to force the government to pay for their private activities through subsidies, tax exemptions, resources like schools, public property of all sorts, or anything funded by government monies.
Let them use their own residences, apartments, houses, and church properties for their religious activities and quit attempting to defraud the public in this manner.
Schoolrooms are set up for school, not religion. This is just an attempt to subvert the First Amendment from start to finish.
hey ironcus, Jim is right. Its not like the church is gonna bust in on a class and say "get out, we need to worship!" Of course they are gonna use rooms after school day hours and weekends. That's how my church begun. They use the school gym on sundays. Eventually they will raise enough money to build an establishment.
No, you are quite wrong. Sorry.
Allowing church services in any government building is illegal and is "respecting an establishment of religion" and is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Your church broke the law and you even admit that the financial support from the government will help your church "afford" their own building someday. That is a government subsidy and is ILLEGAL.
Tell me where this school is that your church is using illegally.
I need to know so I can have some lawyers put a stop to this illegal behavior.
And no one is saying they're going to "bust in on a class", so you might as well shut up about that.
So where is this school you use?
Jim is quite right. A school should be able to rent out its facilities to religious groups or even atheist un-groups. Properly, they should be able to demonstrate that they do not discriminate.
I'm all for separation of church and state, Ironicus, but this seems silly to me. Schools desperately need income. The school system in my county rents out schools for use by all kinds of groups: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Mad Science, dance classes, etc. It's a huge money-maker for the school system. Schools are unused over the summer and on weekends. I see no reason the building should not be rented out to make money that will support the schools, nor do I see any inherent risk that somehow the religious services held in schools will somehow become contagious and infect the secular education of students during the week.
Tom, it is the subsidy and the subversion of public resources that is the issue, not whether the religion does anything to the building or the students.
And just let me point out that if religious groups hadn't cut education funding in the first place, the schools wouldn't need any money at all. At all.
So you fall for the scam they are running here. They are the only ones insisting on using a school building. No one else is doing that but these religious leeches looking to get subsidized by public funds and resources.
Tell me, if the school charged the actual market value for the use of this space and the use of equipment, etc. and if that market value actually reflected the cost to the public, then the issue might become clearer to you because these religious people would scream at having to pay full price and the cost of any damages they may inflict upon the public property they are using illegally.
Tell me, Tom, why can't these religious groups rent a private room at a private business or residence?
They don't want to use someone's living room for free, do they? Why is that?
@Ironicus –
I have to agree with those who disagree with you on this one, my friend. As long as the schools do not discriminate and allow any group (including those with "unpleasant" messages) that can pay the toll equal access to the facility, I don't see any separation violation. These cotton-candy issues divert our attention from genuine issues – for example, why, in this day and age, religious inst.itutions are still tax exempt...now that one deserves some NOISE.
@Ironicus – regarding "actual market value".
I do agree with this completely – all private groups exploiting publicly funded facilities should pay 100% of the costs incurred (and perhaps a fee above-and-beyond the cost, but that's for the bean-counters to decide).
There aren't that many large spaces available in most areas for leasing of the type such groups need, Ironicus. Typically, what I've seen is that church groups start off in some space like a school auditorium where they just pay for the time they use, move on to rented space in a strip mall and finally, when they can afford it, set up their own facility.
Anything less than full market value becomes a de facto government subsidy.
And if you can pay full market value, then why not just rent a space in a strip mall in the first place? Or a conference room in the nearest hotel?
And why aren't they asking any church for the use of space? Isn't that really the proper place for church services in the first damn place?
They insist on using government resources for private religious purposes and as a subsidy and apparent approval and support by the government of their particular religion. That happens to be illegal, people!!
@Ironicus –
Morning coffee still hasn't fully kicked-in...I'm re-noodling how "separation" really fits into this issue and, interestingly, I'm starting to sway towards your point-of-view. I have to stop making hasty posts!
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why these people can't use any other facility ....including any one of the thousands of churches in the area, many of whom have large spaces all ready to go for exactly that sort of thing.
Anyone?
@Ironicus-
My apology first, Ironicus...and my admission that, after consideration, I'm doing a quick 180. Ironicus is correct that allowing religious inst.itutions to hold worship services in public facilities is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Const.itution. As an example, it would clearly be an Establishment Clause violation for Rick Warren to be permitted to broa.dcast Saddleback Church's services on PBS simply because he could foot-the-bill. Expediency does not equate to justice. We all have to remain vigilant.
The religious groups who rent schools here do pay the same rent as any other group. They are paying for heating, cooling, and the cost of electricity, all of which would be used to some degree even if the building were empty. They aren't getting the use of the building for free at all.
Ironicus, how and when did religious groups cut education funding?
If you've ever read ANY of my posts, you'd know I don't suffer fools kindly, nor do I hold much in the way of belief in religious tenets.
If it's a matter of Consti tutional law, then yes, I can understand this action. I'm just not sure that this case is quite so clear-cut.
Thanks Really-O. Expediency is a better word to use in this case. I am too wordy in my attempts to educate I guess.
@Ironicus – You're doing a wonderful job my friend. You caught me off-guard and your post made me realize one can never become intellectually lazy. Thank you.
@Tom Tom – You're correct that, at face-value, it doesn't seem "clear-cut". However, it really is a Const.itutional issue...the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment apply specifically to religion. If public school choose to rent their facilities to stamp collectors, gamblers, or even backwards-ignorant-racists (as objectionable as some, or all, of those may be), the United States Const.itution has not been violated; however the same does not apply to religious groups.
Perhaps. If so, then why has this remained unchallenged to this point? Our school buildings have been rented out to congregations for as long as I can recall. Why is this only now an issue?
Tom, I am against the use of public resources for anything but public use and am extremely against any religious use of public resources whatsoever that violates the letter and intent of the First Amendment.
For instance, I am not against a church picnic in a public park or the use of sidewalks for preaching as these are free speech issues that do not amount to a government subsidy or appearance of support for any religion.
But like that case of Nativity scenes being given special protected spaces on public property, that is a special support for a religious purpose and so violates the law.
A school is not an area open to the public, so free speech does not apply to any outside agency like a religion or other private group. Privatization of public resources is a way of violating the "public" part of the equation and subverts our government's efforts to govern the public by inserting private intent into the governing and administration of public resources.
This also applies to attempts to "privatize" Social Security and Medicare.
Those are nothing but partial "coup" attempts by the GOP to destroy our government piecemeal.
Much like their deliberate cutting of education funding and all the other cuts they always insist on.
The Christian Right wants public money to be used for private religious education (vouchers), buildings and services to be used for private religious purposes (this article), and they want subsidies in the form of tax breaks, special exemptions of other sorts, and they even want to destroy Aid to Needy Families so they can drive people into seeking help at their private religious "missions" where you are not allowed to eat unless you are a Christian, and so on.
And why do they insist on using public money for their private purposes? Or public buildings when there are private ones who might charge little or nothing for the same thing? Because they hate any restrictions on their "free expression" of their religion and do not understand that these freedoms we all share are not "total" freedoms, but are subject to the laws of this country including and especially the Supreme Law of the Constltution.
Tom, I should add, after seeing your latest post, that tradition does not equal legality.
There are many thousands of illegal "traditions" that are shut down when we bring them to light.
Like that religious flag that was flying on some public building for decades before it was pointed out and shown to be illegal.
These religious people have been doing illegal things like this since the Constltution was ratified.
For example: Congress "ignoring" religious services in Congress itself. This has been going on since the beginning and is clearly illegal. That doesn't make it right just because it has been wrongly allowed to happen.
Sorry, but I am not convinced. If the abuse were so egregious and clear-cut, this practice would not just now be coming under fire.
I agree that nativity scenes should not appear on publicly-owned property. I don't think this is the same thing.
Tom, those Nativity scenes paid money for the exclusive use of public land parcels. Where is the difference?
I wonder, Ironicus, do you think public schools should refrain from teaching students about religious beliefs, even if they teach about them in a secular way? Should students never perform any music with a religious text, even if done in a secular setting and with the purpose of providing a complete education, not for the purpose of worship or of promoting a particular belief?
Just curious.
Do they? I don't know that to be a fact. Can you show any evidence that nativity scenes are displayed on public property in exchange for rent money?
@Tom Tom –
"Why is this only now an issue?"
Excellent point! However, I think the gist should be, "Why HASN'T this been an issue until now?" Is it perhaps because liberties are stolen in small increments? In light of the First Amendment, please consider the following:
– Why is "in god we trust" on our currency?
– Why were the words "under god" added to the the Pledge of Allegiance in 1952?
– Why are outwardly religious organizations (YMCA, YWCA, Boy Scouts of America, etc. permitted to use publicly funded facilities for their private use?
– Why are ANY religious organizations tax exempt?
Why? Because those of us who see these things for what they are (unconst.itutional, unethical, sometimes immoral) are too "respectful" of these traditions.
Thoughts?
I'll need more time to consider your questions. However, one point that Ironicus made is that no other private groups are "clamoring" to rent school space. Ironicus, this is patently false. In fact, our school system, as I already pointed out, rents space to a huge number of very diverse private concerns, including homeowner associations, clubs, and so on. Clearly, Ironicus is wrong in claiming that religious groups are the only ones who want to use public school space.
And the solution coming down the road of 21st thinking?
Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" are converging these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.
Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples, rented schools rooms and synagogues.
Good questions. One of my public grade-school teachers was a Catholic and actually tried to convert us in class and put a lot of effort into teaching us Catholic doctrine as fact. He even tried to get around the law by explaining the medical aspects of Jesus' crucifixion and how our souls are part of "God's" soul like a drop of water compared to a bucket of same.
Looking back, I see he violated the law as hard as he could. His favorite student to chastise and harass was the only Jew in class, too, by the way. He was a very cool teacher otherwise, but his intent was criminal, his actions were criminal, and I think he should have been fired for even thinking what he did was okay.
Teaching children about all the other religions in the world all at once in as neutral a manner is okay with me.
"Know your enemies" I always say. But if a teacher is a believer and does not understand that they are teaching a secular cirriculum in a secular school and doing it as a secular employee of a secular branch of government, then they should be shown the door and given directions to the nearest private religious school.
And I had to sing and play many Christian songs in public school. Considering the large body of musical works out in the public square, is it not disturbing that a government employee should essentially force children to play Christian music in the first place?
And do you really believe that these are not violations of the law? Are you really that blind to what has been done for decades in many communities? Would you expect any school to play a Muslim religious song that celebrates the deaths of unbelievers and glorifies Muslim martyrs? No, you wouldn't would you. Yet you do not see the narrow path you have been led down by simple dint of "tradition" and other long-standing violations of the Constltution merely because most Christians support this sort of thing.
I don't suffer fools gladly either. I know you aren't a fool, so I am just trying to explain my take on all this based on my haphazard legal education and insistence upon the rule of law over that of religion. Atheists and other religions are surrounded by Christian bias in almost every place and sector of society, including public education.
The wall must stay up and we must dig out these violations and toss them back over to the religious side like the dog turds they are.
@Tom Tom – "I'll need more time to consider your questions."...
Thanks. I sincerely look forward to your thoughts. This thread is exceedingly more interesting than the usual "'cause god did it" spew presented on this blog by the likes of Chad, George, et al.
Cheers
Tom, yes I was wrong about those private groups. I had forgotten just how many people need to get out of the house for some function or other.
On the other hand, by providing exclusive use of any public resource to a private group is a violation of the First Amendment also, since this is an unequal application of the laws and an unequal and private use of public resources.
As for the Nativity scene examples, it was right here in this blog last year. A California town was selling parcels using a "lottery" process in an attempt to skirt the Constltution, and some atheists ganged up and got a majority of parcels and didn't use them in order to keep them out of the hands of the Nativity scene people who only got a few.
They all paid money for these parcels. I don't have the link but it's here in this blog somewhere.
Really-O?
@Ironicus – "One of my public grade-school teachers was a Catholic..."
That's interesting...during class in third grade my teacher stated, "God is just something people made up to explain things they didn't understand." Of course I agree with her, but at the time she risked being fired for the assertion.
Your response is interesting, Ironicus. I wonder if you realize that the vast majority of musical works are religious in nature. One cannot provide a comprehensive musical education to students if one does NOT educate them about all music. This is where the issue gets sticky. Teaching children music of a religious nature is NOT endorsing the religious belief expressed by the musical composition. If a teacher were to exclude ALL religious music of any kind from a curriculum, students would NOT receive a balanced, complete, or well-rounded education.
There are many, many schools which prohibit any and all music with a religious text from their curricula and prohibit teachers from programming such music for concerts no matter how balanced the program may be (that is, it encompasses secular and sacred, accompanied and unaccompanied, difficult and easy, music in a variety of styles and from a variety of musical eras. Do you think such restrictions are appropriate?
Ironicus, I am not advocating teaching a song of any origin that glorifies violence of prejudice. You are ham-handedly attempting to make this a simple issue when it isn't. There are parents who object to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" because they either see it as "religious" in nature, or because they are from south of the Mason-Dixon line and are still fighting the War of Northern Aggression.
In addition, Ironicus, you said that the reason schools need money from the rental of school property is that religious groups cut school funding. I asked you to explain, when and how this occurred. You have yet to do so. I do not, as I have stated, have any love for the religious fundamentalists in this country, but I do not see any evidence that supports your claim. School funding's been decimated by the recession and by taxpayers who want the best education system in the world but don't want to pony up the taxes to pay for it. Can you prove otherwise?
Hey...on a lighter note folks...check out Chad's defense of slavery and infanticide (also possibly racism, but his passage-laden rant isn't clear) in his debate with Doc Vestibule here:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/29/my-take-the-3-biggest-biblical-misconceptions/comment-page-50/#comments.
Maybe I'll do so later. I hate to ruin a Saturday with a dose of Chad.
Erg, an edit. I included a comma incorrectly in my post to Ironicus. My bad. Smite me, oh god of punctuation.
The religious aspects of music are not in the notes but in the lyrics or tltle. Teaching musical notation does not require a religious bias.
And it is ironic that you are making a similar mistake as mine about the groups. Much of classical music is instrumental, operas are not always about religion, country music isn't always religious, folk music depends on the origin which can be secular or of other religions besides Christian, much of rock and pop music is not religious, and so on.
There is a very large number of songs in all non-religious-labeled musical genres that will do quite well and give any musician a properly rounded musical education without the need for extreme religious songs being included at any point along the way.
Just because so many old composers were Catholic or CofE adherents did not make their music religious even though their religion may have "inspired" them. Music uses musical notes. Musical notes are not inherently religious in nature.
Just last month thousands of public schools had extreme Christian Christmas programs for the kids. This is a violation.
@Tom Tom –
I rather like professor Daniel Dennett's proposal that instruction in ALL religious traditions should be started in primary grades. His as.sertion is that, when the taboo of discussing the hodgepodge of overlapping and conflicting stories is removed, even a young child will see them for what they really are – nonsensical myth and superst.ition. Of course, this might require many legal battles between const.itutional scholars, but I think it's an interesting idea.
I don't have time to educate you, Ironicus, but I'd suggest that if you're truly an engaged learner, you educate yourself on the subject of music history. You aren't currently up to speed.
When you've done so, I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you.
Thanks in advance for keeping an open mind and a willingness to learn about subjects other than those you favor.
Tom, the Religious Right is behind most "austerity" measures, including cuts to education.
Just listen to their rants about evil teacher unions on the radio. Funny how they aren't against police unions at all.
The GOP has been gunning for massive cuts to education, SS, Medicare, NPR, Welfare, etc, for years.
In an economic sense, any massive cuts to education funding is insane, yet the GOP is all for it. They call themselves "social conservatives" even though the label is an oxymoron. Society is a liberal concept. To be "conservative" about society means that you are against helping your fellow human beings in any way, as we can see from their actions.
Any call for massive cuts to education by the same people who push for "vouchers" so they can send their kids to private Catholic schools and such, are the Christian Right seeking to gut secular education because they hate it.
I cannot provide any hard numbers or links, sorry. All I know is that the only people who would cut education even in a recession are those who hate it and do not understand how it helps the economy to have an educated workforce.
Those people are GOP Christian Right-Wing Idiots. They follow clearly wrong ideas because they are dumb and gullible.
No intelligent person would advocate gutting education when it is necessary for a strong economy.
No one but the GOP really fights hard to gut education. They howl at any secular restriction on their Christian religion and follow ignorant ideas because they are not really all that bright.
I know you'd like for me to list every vote taken on reducing education budgets, but you'll just have to settle for my rambling justifications for my viewpoint.
Tell me why public schools still have Christmas programs and I'll tell you why they haven't totally obliterated public school funding yet. They want money for their private schools. They think they can't get it unless they force the issue by driving public education into a dirty hole. Like de-funding Welfare, they think this will drive people into seeking help in the arms of their churches where they can say "worship or starve" or hadn't you seen that bit yet?
Sorry I'm not a musical history professor. Geez. Am I wrong about non-religious music? There's plenty of it out there.
Am I wrong about that? Really? You haven't listened to any heavy metal lately? How non-religious do you need music to be?
Are you ignert? Yeah, you are. That's what happens when people who think they know everything about everything attempt to impose their opinions on others.
Educate yourself. The fact is that most serious music for centuries was sacred in nature. That music cannot be swept under the rug for your comfort without creating a generation of students who are ignorant of music history.
I
I SMITE THEE, TOM!
Go forth and sin no more!
As I said before, Ironicus, I don't have the time or the patience or the energy to educate you. If you can't be bothered, it's not my problem. I have no love for the GOP or the religious right, but I also have no time for people who think every issue is as simple as black and white. And "heavy metal"? Really? What are you, 15? Get a clue, Gomer. Music is a very complex art. It isn't just "notes".
When you figure out the nuances and subtleties, get back to me. You want everything to be simple and easy. It isn't. Figure it out.
Tom, I have already admitted that I am not a music history professor.
The fact remains that you seem to think that including religious music is an absolute requirement in any music education, yet you say nothing as to which music should be included and which should be excluded.
General music education would, I expect, include a general range of music as needed. If this includes religious music, then there should be secular reasons for this instead of religious ones.
And please don't get too snarky. I am quite capable of being a total ass-hole. I think of you as a friend and fellow atheist.
Giving crap to my fellow atheists is usually reserved for technical violations. Exceptions exist, however.
I will ask you, do you know of every song ever made, recorded, written, or otherwise put into the public arena?
Will you insist that the majority of all music is religious and use that as an excuse for ignoring all the other, non-religious music that ever existed?
Just how many songs do you think someone can play at once? Music is not limited to religious music or we wouldn't need to delineate it and label it separately in the first place!
Having kids sing songs about Jesus in a public school is illegal.
Teaching a kid how to play "Silent Night" on a violin is not necessarily illegal, but it might be.
And just because someone doesn't object to something does not make it legal, no matter how many people allow the violation or how long it has been going on.
Having students sing a religious text, including "Silent Night" or "S'vivon" in school is not, nor should it be, illegal.
As for the rest of your post, I'm rapidly losing any respect I ever had for you. You are attempting to make a complex issue into a black-and-white, cut-and-dried, wrong or right, legal or illegal one, when it is nothing of the sort. You are doing more damage to education than a religious zealot ever could. You are advocating censoring education by prohibiting instructors who ARE musically knowledgeable from giving students a well-rounded and balanced musical experience by pretending that there was no music of value that was composed with a religious text or through the pat ronage of the church. In doing so, you are no better than the religious zealots who attempt to curt ail education in the name of their own beliefs.
Children deserve to understand the historical signifi cance of the "Me s siah". They should and must be allowed to perform sacred as well as secular, pop, classical and folk music, just as they must be allowed to study the tene ts of various religions. Studying ABOUT does not consti tute BELIEVING IN.
If you don't comprehend the difference, honey, I don't know what to tell you.
Iron: I will ask you, do you know of every song ever made, recorded, written, or otherwise put into the public arena?
–Hardly. What does this have to do with the discussion? I'll wager I know more of them than you do, however.
Iron: Will you insist that the majority of all music is religious and use that as an excuse for ignoring all the other, non-religious music that ever existed?
-The bulk of music composed in the western hemisphere from the beginning of music history up to the 18th century was sacred in its intent and its origin. This was the music funded by the church and by private patrons and was the largest body of published work.
Iron: Just how many songs do you think someone can play at once?
--What the de vil are you babbling about? What does the number of songs anyone can play simultaneously have to do with anything? With technology, one can play a multi tude of songs at once. So what?
Iron: Music is not limited to religious music or we wouldn't need to delineate it and label it separately in the first place!
-–Who said it was limited to religious music, you twit?
Iron: Having kids sing songs about Jesus in a public school is illegal.
--Nope. It isn't.
Ironicus, you can consider me a friend up to the point when you start infringing on MY rights to perform my duties, and begin attempting to express your opinion about a subject on which you are not well-educated in such a way as to pretend you have authority in that arena.
I don't take kindly to it.
Tom, you said, "Children deserve to understand the historical signifi cance of the "Me s siah". They should and must be allowed to perform sacred as well as secular, pop, classical and folk music, just as they must be allowed to study the tene ts of various religions. Studying ABOUT does not consti tute BELIEVING IN. "
I agree.
Yet you seem to think I don't. How very strange.
Perhaps you are not reading all of my words but are only skimming my posts.
I am pointing out that a Christmas Pageant where all the kids regardless of belief, are required to participate unless their parents catch the news and demand that their children be excused from participating.
That's coercion by exclusion. Most kids want to be part of the group. To force a Jewish or Muslim child to sit on the sidelines is to be treated in a discriminatory manner based upon their particular religion.
How is that not illegal???????
And how is it legal to have a Christmas pageant when this is a blatant violation of the First Amendment????
I don't understand why you fail to see this.
I guess YOU are pretty clueless about the First Amendment and how it is violated with impunity throughout our country's history!!
Are you really that stupid? I can't really be sure so I thought I'd ask. Not expecting a knowledgeable or intellectually honest answer, though. I try to be realistic in my expectations of other people. Maybe you should have some coffee.
Let me know when you receive your degree in music and you decide to engage in a valid discussion. Your posts are not indicative of someone who is open to anything approaching such.
So I agree with you and still get the insults. Good show.
And requiring me to get a music history education is really quite stupid.
Thanks for giving me something to give you shlt about. I was starting to worry.
Oh, did you think you upset someone? I deal with major azzholes every day, dear. You're a piece of cake. By the way, are you going to answer the questions I posed in response to your post? I suspect not, as it would reveal that you didn't even quite manage to read and comprehend anything I wrote.
You have made so many assumptions, it's obvious you're either a troll or you haven't read much. I am an staunch advocate of abortion rights. I do not believe religion and politics should mix. I am adamantly opposed to teaching creationism in schools.
I guess it's hard for a kid like you to realize that not all things are black and white. Not a surprise or even a disappointment. I didn't really expect much from you anyway.
So, that time of the month, then?
Guess my comments left a mark, huh?
Poor little troll. Why don't you post under one of your other names, dear?
Let it all out, girl. Purge those foul humours! Release those demons! Give me both barrels! Go ahead! 😀
tom tom the piper son
stole a pig and
gave himself way too much credit
for being a good thief or
influencing anyone
Oh, no need. I've gotten all the jollies I need out of watching you rub one out.
So we're friends now? Great. I didn't expect it to be from you watching me masturba.te, however....!
Take the mayors obvious political motivation and turn them on its ear. Meet in the streets and praise Him.
If your 'god' NEEDS us to praise and worship 'him', then your god is suffering from a serious inferiority complex so 'its' ego can be boosted. I suggest your deity go to therapy ... now!!
Why you you want to praise the mayor?
Prayer changes things
prove it
Prayer has changed the course of human history since the dawn of time.
ok then "Inconvenient" .. just ONE question .. is your 'god' omniscient.. yes, or no - that's all oyu need to say.
How exactly has prayer ever changed anything outside of making the person doing the praying feel better? Please provide examples of where you think prayer has worked. You moron's spewing this garbage tend to neglect the fact that your thought on prayer and its effects has been proven wrong time and time again by professionals who have vastly studied the effects. Why is it that parents praying over their ill children only end up with children getting sicker or dying? Why is it your god is not helping there...does he hate children?
Something you christards need to understand when you spew the following crap:
"A belief in science (or being an atheist) requires the same amount of faith as a belief in god/gods."
'Faith is certainly needed to believe in god, science is geared up to removing reliance in faith.
Science is the systematic acquisition and application of knowledge in the structure and behaviour of the physical universe gained via empirical evidence through observation, measurement and experimentation.
It does not enlist faith.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
Many believe that atheism should be defined as a belief that no gods exist because they want to make it seem like a position of faith.
Clearly, if the faithful feel at a disadvantage because their beliefs are faith based and insupportable by logic or evidence. Then pretending that those who lack their belief also have a faith based position demand much less intellectual discipline is a much easier option than facing up to the burden of proof they give when insisting they believe what they do.
But one doesn't have to believe no gods exist to recognise and expose theistic claims as indefensible.' (borrowed from Atheism, philosophy, and science. page on facebook)
Prayer changes things only when the outcome is what is desired. When the outcome is not what you want, you are suddenly very quiet. I know only too well as I married an evangelical Christian who prays about everything. She swears that it really works, but when her prayers don't come true, she says that she didn't pray hard enough. What a load of BS.
God created science it is in His realm not yours. Atheists have given the earth mass murder, genocide and misery since the first foul unbeliever existed.
Yippee! I wished upon a star that @Atheism is not.. would post this nonsense again!
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true
justsayin, you have failed repeatedly to produce any single shred of proof that your drivel is worth the bandwidth it consumes or that prayer achieves anything. You have failed to show that atheists are creating 'problems' simply because they don't believe as you do or that they contribute less to society's benefit than Christians. Are you going to man up, grow a set and do so, or should I just write you off as a complete waste of oxygen and a drain on resources of all kinds?
I'm so sorry tom, you must have missed all the postings listing those famous atheists like Stalin, Hitler,Mao and Pol Pot who along with many other atheists murdered,enslaved and brought misery to billions of people.
And you must have missed the many requests I made that you prove the fact they were atheists was the impetus for their deeds. When are you going to grow that set of balls and stop obfuscating?
I wonder, Incontinent, how do explain the Spanish Inquisition? The massacres of Native Americans? The torture of "heretics"? Funny how your lack of balls affects your memory of history. Or maybe your shriveled nuts are simply a symptom of your complete and utter stupidity.
sweetie tom if you personally witnessed their various statements of unbelief and watched as they imprisoned and killed your friends and family I doubt you would be bright enough to figure it out. You would still be here defending Stalin, Hitler and their ilk no matter what you were shown. That must be the real tragedy of atheism - ignorance.
So you've proven my point. Thanks, honey. You're a peach.
@An inconvenient truth:”Prayer has changed the course of human history since the dawn of time.”
NO it hasn’t and doesn’t for example: as long as I can remember (and I’m a bit over 50) every year the pope (Christ’s vicker on earth, the most powerful prayer in the world, Mr. religion himself ) has prayed for peace in the Middle East every Christmas and it hasn’t done a bit of good. He might just as well have wished upon a star. So if decades of praying by Mr. Big doesn’t change anything, then I’ m left to the conclusion that either god does not answer prayer (if not for the big guy then for who?) or there is no god to answer at all
'vicker' = vicar
Given the inspiration by God men and women throughout history have diligently prayed to God for specific needs. Some prayers are answered almost immediately (George Frederick Muller) Other prayers take longer to come to fulfillment, Some in the health and science realm for example. Prayers for deliverance of a peoples such as eliminating the slave trade took 100's of years. If more people would honor and listen to God, the potential for reducing the time between prayer and answer could be reduced. Are you doing your part or are you part of the problems of this world?
You have yet to prove that any of the events you've cited were the result of a prayer or a god.
Get on it, you ball-less wonder.
Proof is before you do with it what you will,there are none so blind as those who will not see.
@Inconvenient
Let us help you out here. If one of the independent variables in an outcome, (besides an actual act of god), is prayer, then think about it.....you do have a brain, right ?
(God + Prayer -> Outcome.)
If your god knows everything, and has a "plan", then it knows what it is going to do, before the prayer is done. (If not, it is not omniscient.) That leads one to the conclusion that, prayer is not really an independent variable, and the prayer is a., not an effective or necessary agent, or b., the god paradigm is flawed in other ways. Maybe there IS no plan, maybe it is not omniscient, maybe there is no big daddy. Take your pick.
BECAUSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS, STUPID, WORTHLESS RELIGIOUS GARBAGE!!
And that's all I have to say about that.
People may be able to respond to you if your comment made any sense. Then again they probably wouldn't. Why would we bother.
Bloomberg has seen the light:
Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" are converging these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.
Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples and synagogues.
to really see the light hit report abuse on all reality bull sh it
Religion has no place in the public schools in this country. I congratulate Bloomberg for finally standing up for the Bill of Rights. Thank you!
I would have thought it was obvious this is not about mixing religion with public schooling, simply using school building's for holding church services when the buildings are closed for normal schooling.
Robert, the issue is the illegal use of government resources for private religious purposes.
It happens to be clearly banned by the First Amendment.
Any government money that goes for private religious activities or purposes is illegal and should be dealt with wherever it is found. This is about illegal use of public resources and also about the illegal *appearance* of mixing religion with public schooling which is also prohibited.
The actual mixing is not required for it to be illegal in that respect, only the perceived "support" of the government that violates the First Amendment in addition to the financial and very real "support" that subversion of public resources entails.
Ironicus, I do understand your argument, but if you're correct and this is so clear-cut, why has it taken this long for such action? Why have churches been meeting in public schools for decades without anyone bringing suit?
As to why no one has brought suit before, consider the history of this nation and how dangerous it can be to oppose religious nuts who surround you at all times. Even now I will not put an atheist sticker on my car because I don't want to be killed or have my rights violated because of my risky behavior in a religiously oppressive society such as the one we have always had in this country.
Would you go into an evangelical church and tell them they are following lies and expect to escape unscathed? I wouldn't.
That does not answer the question. At all.
Tell me, Tom, why haven't we taken the "In God We Trust" off of our American money after all these years?
Do you think it is because we really trust in "god"? Or do you think it's because the religious people insist on violating the Constltution any which way they can?
Why haven't you filed suit in Federal Court to have this taken off of our money, Tom? Tell me that, if you would be so kind.
Tell me, Ironicus, how old are you anyway?
Tell me, Ironicus, how much difference do mottos make?
Tell me, Ironicus, how much do you know about matters that do count?
I don't care what's on our money, as long as I'm not forced to spend it in some specific way or to benefit some religious group or cause. I don't care about how school buildings are used unless teachers in those buildings are forced to teach a particular religious belief. If you do, by all means, use your immense personal wealth (your weekly allowance) to support your cause.
When you want to have an intelligent discussion, let me know you've acquired some intelligence. I haven't seen evidence of it, or intellectual honesty, from you as of now.
Tom, my age is none of your business. I am old enough to be a pain in the ass. That should work for you, right?
Mottos only make as much difference as they actually make according to each particular situation. Why, did you think different?
As to what "matters" that "count", wouldn't you agree that such a subjective question would only generate a subjective answer if I were to explain how these matters "count" according to my personal point of view?
Now...YOU may not care about some stuff that I care about. That's okay.
Whether or not YOU care about something does not change the legality or illegality of that something.
If YOU aren't willing to argue against violations of our Constltution, that's okay. I do not require it of you.
*I* am not requiring YOU to do anything. So I really don't give a shlt what you care about. See how this works?
I happen to care very deeply about my rights, your rights, and everyone else's rights. If you want to sit back and watch them get taken away from you, me, and everyone else, you are totally free to do so.
If you don't like my priorities, that's okay. I do not require you to follow them. I am just pointing out the illegality, no matter how unimportant it may seem to your vast intellect, of every violation I can point to as regards the First Amendment.
Again, I do not require you to care. I don't care about certain things but when I don't care, I usually don't bother posting about them. You apparently do things differently. That's okay. We are all individuals.
I will fight for your rights even when you don't want me to. I'm not doing it to gain your approval. I'm doing it for everyone and require no one's approval.
If you don't want Equal Rights under the Law, and you don't want the Rule of Law, that's up to you.
Isn't it ironic that you are using your rights to post your opinion yet do not care about any rights you aren't currently "using"?
You have yet to prove your "rights" are being violated by mottos or the use of public buildings by private individuals. I don't really think you have the authority to determine such matters. It's up to the courts. As for your age, it's not that I give two sh its how old you are, it's just that the impression I get from your posts is that you are very young and quite naive about a number of things.
Fight all you want, sweetie. It's your right. I don't care how you spend your time.
I'd advise you, however, to remember, that "your time" is limited. It's wise to pick your battles.
So you are one of those people who think "no harm no foul." Right. Okay.
Let me explain how I view these commonly ignored violations of the First Amendment:
Things like "In God We Trust" on our money violates my rights to religious freedom. How does that grab you?
Every encroachment and violation of the First Amendment by religious groups violates my rights to religious freedom and violates my equal rights to equality under the law.
As an atheist, I guess you "don't care" when Catholics push for anti-abortion laws that violate the First Amendment because you aren't pregnant or planning to become pregnant – so as far as you're concerned it doesn't matter to you right now.
And I guess you "don't care" about teaching Creationism in public schools because you aren't in public school anymore.
And you probably "don't care" about Governor Perry declaring a day of "prayer" because you don't pray.
Yet all these things violate your rights and my rights to religious freedom and equality under the law.
So okay. You are a lazy so-and-so and can't be bothered to actually THINK about what's going on and SEE how your rights are being violated just because it doesn't occur to you to even care to look.
Equal Rights is where it's at. Equal Rights is the whole reason we even HAVE a Constltution in the first place!
But don't ask Tom to think about it. Oh, no. She's too busy teaching music or something. She can't face the massive violations of the Constltution that happen all around her. Can't be bothered with stuff like that. Nope.
As I said, when you feel up to an intelligent discussion about the issues I raised, let me know. I've said nothing about teaching creationism, about putting on Christmas pageants of most of the other crap you've blathered on about.
As for laziness, I wonder if you have a job, Ironicus. Or do you still live with your mom while she pays for your guitar lessons?
I've BEEN having an intelligent conversation and have addressed most, if not all, of your "points."
If you can't see this or even argue or show where I am wrong, then it is YOU who are being an immature jerk by not continuing a respectful and intelligent dialogue and debate.
I'm fine with what I wrote.
If you have a problem with what I wrote, why not point it out in simple language for my edification if you think I am so stupid?
Or you can continue to insult me without addressing anything I've said. Totally up to you.
No, you have most certainly not done anything of the kind. You can splutter your outrage at being called on it all you wish, but you made a number of statements that I questioned above. You did nothing to address my response. Be a baby if you want. Or grow up and make an attempt to be an adult.
Here are my responses and subsequent questions, sweetcheeks. You have failed to answer them up to now. Are you going to do so now or continue to be defensive and avoid admitting that you have assumed facts not in evidence?
Or are you Mark from Middle River?
Iron: I will ask you, do you know of every song ever made, recorded, written, or otherwise put into the public arena?
–Hardly. What does this have to do with the discussion? I'll wager I know more of them than you do, however.
Iron: Will you insist that the majority of all music is religious and use that as an excuse for ignoring all the other, non-religious music that ever existed?
-The bulk of music composed in the western hemisphere from the beginning of music history up to the 18th century was sacred in its intent and its origin. This was the music funded by the church and by private patrons and was the largest body of published work.
Iron: Just how many songs do you think someone can play at once?
–What the de vil are you babbling about? What does the number of songs anyone can play simultaneously have to do with anything? With technology, one can play a multi tude of songs at once. So what?
Iron: Music is not limited to religious music or we wouldn't need to delineate it and label it separately in the first place!
-–Who said it was limited to religious music, you twit?
Iron: Having kids sing songs about Jesus in a public school is illegal.
–Nope. It isn't.
Troll, I've been addressing every reply you've made to me in my own way.
If you can't understand rhetoric or other complicated concepts like that, that is not my problem.
I've asked you dozens of questions, yet you have barely answered a single one.
So why should I continue answering yours when you won't answer mine?
Tell me that, Tom. But you will probably prefer to make more little kid insults. Very mature of you.
I think that you are being rather immature. I don't expect you to agree.
Tell me why you refuse to answer my questions and then turn around and dismiss all of my answers?
Or even spell out the questions you think I haven't answered to your mighty powers of discernment?
Quit being insulting and talk! Discuss! Converse! Spell out your objections or shut the fuck up!
And I've agreed with you above. This is a different thread. If you want to mix them, fine, but did you even notice I agreed with you at some point or will you continue to cut and paste?
Guess I hit a nerve. I've already posted the questions I have. Twice. If you can't answer them, it's no skin off my nose, dearie.
Go nurse your wounds.
Oh, so you admit that it isn't "illegal" to have students sing Christmas carols in public schools, as long as they are learning them for the musical concepts embedded in them? That it isn't wrong for teachers to use music with a sacred text as long as such music is part of a balanced program in which musical education, not religious instruction, is the goal and focus? You admit that you were incorrect about the legality of including education about religious customs when such education is part of a broad and inclusive program?
Yeah, I don't know how I'll ever live it down. Gosh. I guess you are too smart for me. Gee whiz.
Oh, you finally noticed that I agreed with you way up there? Gosh. You have a mind like a steel trap.
I wonder how long it will take you to notice that nothing I said disagreed with that particular paragraph of yours, but you insisted on interpreting my words that way despite all my efforts to clarify.
I guess I'm too used to dumbing-down my arguments for the religitards and put too many words in my arguments.
Somewhere along the way you jumped to some conclusions. That's okay. I forgive you. It's all good exercise, right?
Tom>"Oh, so you admit that it isn't "illegal" to have students sing Christmas carols in public schools, as long as they are learning them for the musical concepts embedded in them? That it isn't wrong for teachers to use music with a sacred text as long as such music is part of a balanced program in which musical education, not religious instruction, is the goal and focus? You admit that you were incorrect about the legality of including education about religious customs when such education is part of a broad and inclusive program?"
>>Show me one instance where Christmas carols are being sung purely for the "musical concepts" (right) embedded in them.
I seriously doubt you could do that. What are these "musical concepts" and why are they absent from all other music?
If it is not part of a well-rounded music education, then it is almost surely illegal.
So, NO, it is almost surely illegal to sing Christmas carols as commanded by a school employee and I admit only to the possibility that such a rare occurence MIGHT be legal, but so rare that I feel quite safe in saying it is not.
Exceptions can exist in strange places, but in terms of "musical concepts" there are quite a lot of different ways a teacher could use such words to justify forcing non-Christian children to sing a Jesus song, grinning evilly on the inside at making a Jewish child sing it, for example, and get away with it. That would not excuse the teacher's criminal intent, actual crime, and deliberate misleading of anyone who questioned the act with the words "musical concept."
I know it sounds paranoid, yet I have seen many instances of this in person. Using a convenient label in order to avoid being held accountable is all part and parcel of the way some people operate. Not you, of course. Just some others I have seen.
>>I already agreed with the sentiment of the second sentence.
>>Third sentence: I never said such a thing was illegal, yet you interpreted my words that way.
I am guessing you are some sort of music teacher with a tuba stuck up her ass about music, right? Or a music student who passionately defends the merest hint of possible bias in your favorite hobby? Why else would you have a major shlt-fit over my statements about Christmas music? Hell, I don't know. Just shooting in the dark here. Trolling, you know. 😀
Again, forcing children in a public school to sing Christmas carols is illegal. Are you unable to consider the likely scenarios with non-Christian children being involved?
But you freak out when I say things like that and only redeem part of your screeching with mentioning a "well-rounded" music education, which is NOT what is happening during a Christmas pageant.
And, yes, I was bored and came back to nit-pick a little and noticed this one post of yours I ignored previously because most of it had already been dealt with elsewhere in different form.
I suspect we actually agree on 99percent of this stuff but are arguing because we aren't really taking the time to type a proper response. Kind of fun, though. Tell me, Tom / Tallulah, how old are you? 13? Over 30?
You are fun to read, but difficult to calm down and a real pain in the ass to "discuss" things with.
I suspect I am just as bad if not worse, so don't worry about it. Feel free to stalk me. I haven't had an atheist stalker yet.
It might be rather interesting....and if you don't like this current name, which other names do you think I've been using?
If you guess right I'll try to admit it but I cannot promise anything. I already have stalkers who go after some of my other names...
"Again, forcing children in a public school to sing Christmas carols is illegal."
Do point out where I stated that 'forcing' a child to sing anything was the issue, you moron.
Or continue looking like an illiterate who is unable to comprehend what's written.
I didn't say you said that, silly!
I was just making sure that we were clearly agreeing on one thing and that it was separate from the other.
I was stating it for my own satisfaction and making sure you knew where I stood on that. Nothing more.
I was not stating it as if you had said it and I was making an issue about it.
So you like watching me rub one off, eh?
I'm going to check this room for hidden cameras now, just because you said that.
😛
This guy just wants cheap rent so his services are more profitable. That pesky Constipitution thangy is messing up his cash flow