Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: Violence and censorship
Posted By: Dracimas, on host 192.173.47.2
Date: Friday, March 10, 2000, at 14:52:33
In Reply To: Re: Violence and censorship posted by Stephen on Friday, March 10, 2000, at 13:37:55:

> > > 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.
>
> You can pray in class all you want. You just can't interrupt the entire class to do it. Why? Simply because schools can't take time out of class to practice *any* religious ceremony. Nobody's saying you can't silently pray at your desk during a class period, but you can't expect a teacher to endorse any sort of religious function at any time during a class.
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Allright, let's say then that in the middle of a history class or something, the instructor said "Let's interrupt this period so that any Buddhists that would like to may meditate." You don't have to participate, but it's an interruption nonetheless. Any sort of mandatory moment of silence is essentially the same thing. Would your clarify your last statement? How is the government acting against religion by not allowing school run prayer periods?
>
> Stephen

You know, I had a very lengthy answer typed out in response to your last post. But after re-reading it, and thinking about it, I realized that yet again we are addressing a subject that will just cause hard feelings and *still* go unresolved. There is no way we are ever going to see each others' points-of-view about this. So instead of causing undue stress by continuing an argument that neither of us will win, I have decided to simply say that I appreciate your view point and your ability to thouroughly argue your opinion. You have given me a lot to consider and I assure you I will think about the things you have said. I can only hope I have done the same for you.

Drac