How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[Bomb#20]

I'm trying to find out from Ziprhead why Ziprhead thinks it's a bad thing.

I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.

Are you a mind reader?

Yes. So are you. All humans are mind readers except the unconscious and the severely autistic. Human brains have mediocre security systems and can't help but leak information about their thoughts through side-channels. That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

I have not said one thing about the story I posted.

Quite so. But you have said a number of things about analogous stories.

 

[Bomb#20]

It will end only when an atheist teacher starts indoctrinating students.

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

 

[Politesse]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

 

[ZiprHead]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

What is the reason you are personalizing this subject?

 

[Bomb#20]

I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.

So, you want to cast aspersions not even in the view that this is a bad thing, but on the person(s)

Um, what aspersions have I cast on him? I simply asked him what his point is. That's what normally happens on IIDB when somebody starts a thread by posting a link without making any comment on it.

If you're saying my comment that his reason for objecting is not the same as my reason for objecting is an aspersion, thank you for stipulating that my reason for objecting is the correct reason.

you perceive incorrectly

How the heck would you know whether my perception is incorrect when neither Ziprhead nor I have stated our respective reasons? Are you stipulating that Ziprhead has leaked information about his reasons through side channels? If so, why the bejesus do you object to my drawing inferences from it?

as objecting to it for reasoning you cast upon them and assume of them unilaterally.

Excuse me? Where the hell did you see me "cast reasoning" upon him? I didn't tell him what his reasons are; I asked him.

So no, I'm not going to "butt out". It's a public form and so I'm going to "butt in" as much as I wish when I wish, as I wish, and you can just tolerate that to the extent you must on behalf of the fact that it's my right to do so.

I didn't tell you to butt out; I pointed out that your contributions have been useless and you brought my "straight up scientology level 'what are your crimes'" on yourself and I invited you to feel free to butt out, because that would be a sensible thing for you to do. But as always, you're going to go on doing you.

You can either stop trying to focus an agenda against folks who, from where I stand,

Where you stand is monumentally irrelevant.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

What is the reason you are personalizing this subject?

Which subject? The subject you asked me about, whether I'm a mind-reader? I personalized that because what you personally said to me bore directly on whether Politesse's "Except" reply was a valid counterargument to my post.

If you mean the subject of the thread, what is the subject of the thread? You posted a link without comment so it's not clear what issue it is you mean for thread participants to discuss.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um, what aspersions have I cast on him? I simply asked him what his point is. That's what normally happens on IIDB when somebody starts a thread by posting a link without making any comment on it

Usually only when the thing is something that the person so commenting on is something that the commenting poster thinks is either "not a big deal" or which the commenter thinks the OP is using to blow out of proportion so as to attack some out-group.

The conduct of the OP, as you mention, is eggregious and unacceptable, and you rightly agree it is so. There is no 'outgroup' here that is having conduct blown out of proportion.

If you're saying my comment that his reason for objecting is not the same as my reason for objecting is an aspersion, thank you for stipulating that my reason for objecting is the correct reason.

You are committing a fallacious argument here, conflating A and THE.

You are presenting A correct reason. I am presenting A correct reason. Presenting correct reasons does not rule out other reasons for posting this. But your aspersion is in fact a levelled accusation.

How the heck would you know whether my perception is incorrect when neither Ziprhead

Because you perceived something when there was no thing there to perceive. However you think you have perceived it, you have perceived it wrong. You have ascertained something from nothing so it is wholely and thus fallaciously invented. It doesn't even matter what you perceived, even if you guessed right.

I asked him

In such a way as to imply before the fact that his reasons were unreasonable without even knowing them.

I didn't tell you to butt out; ... and I invited you to feel free to butt out

Mmm don't you just love the smell of contradiction in the morning.

Where you stand is monumentally irrelevant

Now look on a mirror and say that, and you might be onto something.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. Kennedy marks an effort to overturn nearly 60 years of precedent protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head. The case erases the rights of children who wish to avoid religious coercion at school, fixating instead on the right of school officials to practice their religion during the course of their formal duties. It is the culmination of a decadeslong battle to reframe government neutrality toward religion as unconstitutional discrimination against people of faith. And it is chillingly likely to succeed.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Kennedy as a mere doctrinal shift in constitutional law, as radical as that doctrinal shift would be. This case is also the product of the Republican political campaign aimed at restoring public schools’ authority to indoctrinate students with Christianity. The campaign is on the brink of success in the courts because proponents of school prayer have perfected a tactic that reverses the victim and offender.

Today, school officials who coerce students into prayer go on the offensive, claiming that any attempt to halt their efforts at religious coercion is actually persecution of their religious beliefs. Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

It will end only when an atheist teacher starts indoctrinating students.

No. The real answer here is the Satanists!

 

[Bomb#20]

Um, what aspersions have I cast on him? I simply asked him what his point is. That's what normally happens on IIDB when somebody starts a thread by posting a link without making any comment on it

Usually only when the thing is something that the person so commenting on is something that the commenting poster thinks is either "not a big deal" or which the commenter thinks the OP is using to blow out of proportion so as to attack some out-group.

The conduct of the OP, as you mention, is eggregious and unacceptable, and you rightly agree it is so. There is no 'outgroup' here that is having conduct blown out of proportion.

Out of proportion to what?

You are committing a fallacious <rest of your bloviation snipped>

 

[ZiprHead]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

What is the reason you are personalizing this subject?

Which subject? The subject you asked me about, whether I'm a mind-reader? I personalized that because what you personally said to me bore directly on whether Politesse's "Except" reply was a valid counterargument to my post.

If you mean the subject of the thread, what is the subject of the thread? You posted a link without comment so it's not clear what issue it is you mean for thread participants to discuss.

This is a secular message board. I thought it would be a good topic for discussion, until you shit all over it, that is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um, what aspersions have I cast on him? I simply asked him what his point is. That's what normally happens on IIDB when somebody starts a thread by posting a link without making any comment on it

Usually only when the thing is something that the person so commenting on is something that the commenting poster thinks is either "not a big deal" or which the commenter thinks the OP is using to blow out of proportion so as to attack some out-group.

The conduct of the OP, as you mention, is eggregious and unacceptable, and you rightly agree it is so. There is no 'outgroup' here that is having conduct blown out of proportion.

Out of proportion to what?

You are committing a fallacious <rest of your bloviation snipped>

Out of proportion with what, indeed. You're the one in here shitting on it, and you haven't even had the honesty so far to just say why, as if that isn't included... Well, every time I do similarly?

 

[LoAmmo]

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

SLD can certainly answer for SLD.

But I am most definitely under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started.
If I'm wrong about that, I'd certainly like to know, though. What do you have?

 

[Metaphor]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

That's what happens when you publicly act contrary to scripture.
Mathew 6:5
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others."

No theocracy should tolerate such behavior in a public employee.

First, that statement is very Christian-centric. Does every faith tradition have a proscription on public prayer or worship?

Second, the US isn't a theocracy so it shouldn't be prescribing how public employees pray.

 

[SLD]

It will end only when an atheist teacher starts indoctrinating students.

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

Well, your response requires a rather complicated riposte. Let’s start with the second question first. One, I am unaware of a single incident in the public schools in the United States of a complaint against a teacher telling students that they shouldn’t be believing in god. If you have a counter example, please share it. But I looked in vain on the web for any such accusation.

But as for why I believe it, it’s quite simple. For the last few decades, the Christian Right has been attacking Church State separation from the perspective that they should have the freedom to use their government positions to express their faith. And to some extent they’ve been successful. But the Supreme Court has always made it clear that government cannot differentiate between faiths. Thus if they succeed in overturning cases involving school prayer, the one caveat is that it will apply to all religions. Thus if this teacher in the case before the court is to prevail, atheists will then have the right to indoctrinate students with atheism. Presently, that right does not exist in US public schools. The religious right though is too stupid to realize this. They want to do everything they can to force students to conform to their religion only. But it won’t work if Atheists like us assert our rights. Or, as Loren put it, Satanists. Or Muslims. They will shit their pants the first time this comes up. And it will.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

SLD can certainly answer for SLD.

But I am most definitely under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started.
If I'm wrong about that, I'd certainly like to know, though. What do you have?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that this guy's an atheist...

Antifa teacher who wanted to indoctrinate students to reportedly be fired

Gabriel Gipe is reportedly set to be fired after being seen on video praising Antifa and discussing his effort to “turn [students] into revolutionaries.”

nypost.com

 

[laughing dog]

School is built on indoctrination. All this is about is which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you mean the subject of the thread, what is the subject of the thread? You posted a link without comment so it's not clear what issue it is you mean for thread participants to discuss.

This is a secular message board. I thought it would be a good topic for discussion, until you <expletive deleted> all over it, that is.

You post a link without comment. I ask you what your position on it is. You address me with an obscenity. I'm not the one degrading the quality of your thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

School is built on indoctrination. All this is about is which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school.

Whoa, actual discussion? Is that allowed in this thread?

So do you have a position on which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school? Do you think the OP indoctrination is a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

 

[laughing dog]

School is built on indoctrination. All this is about is which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school.

Whoa, actual discussion? Is that allowed in this thread?

So do you have a position on which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school? Do you think the OP indoctrination is a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private. Moreover, there would be pressure on team members to participate. IMO, this violates the separation of church and state.

This all happened in a very red state - Kentucky. Which suggests to me that it must have been pretty blatant and disruptive.