Re: Violence and censorship
Dracimas, on host 192.173.47.2
Friday, March 10, 2000, at 10:28:13
Re: Violence and censorship posted by Stephen on Friday, March 10, 2000, at 10:03:01:
> > > > > > > > > > a mandatory minute of silence in public schools jsut passed the Virginia legislatures. > > > > > > > > > > uni"what do you think about that?"peg > > > > > > > > I think it'll probably be overturned sooner or later. > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > I just think the student will eventually end up talking through it, a regular scheduled moment of silence will just become routine and meaningless to most of them. I'd proable read or doodle myself. > > > > > > Speed'realist'ball > > > > I think the biggest problem is the word 'mandatory'. American's have this notion that as a free people we cannot be made to do anything we don't want to do. And to a point I have to say that it is rightly so. The governments problem comes when people decide they don't want to do something *simply because* it's mandatory. > > Here's the thing: the constitution is extremely clear on this one. The government is to stay out of religion. There is to be no state run religion, no official religion, nothing. You can't have any sort of mandatory time for prayer in school. Why on earth people keep belaboring this is beyond me. You're allowed to pray all you want during breaks, lunch, etc. Just don't ask that the school make it official in any way, shape or form. > > Ste "You can bet the instant that school's began issuing some sort of "Daily Buddhist Meditation" period, the Christians would be up in arms" phen
Ok, I agree with that, but my point is that if they are to stay out of it, then they should stay out of it. It might be OK to pray during breaks, lunch, etc., but by crackies I'm gonna pray anywhere and anytime I feel like it. With literal interpretation what you're saying is that it's OK to pray during these interims, but not OK during class periods. OK during somethings but not during others. The gov't is still deciding when and where we are allowed to practice our faith and that is NOT staying out of religion. That is governing it.
And YES I would be offended if it was made mandatory for everyone to have that "Daily Buddhist Meditation", But I would not be offended in the slightest if it were simply made available for those who so chose to be a part of it. Nothing about religion should be mandatory. Either for or against. All I was saying is that by not being in the support of religion, the gov't has become involved against it and that's still not seperation of church and state.
Drac
|