or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Disquiet over schools' moment of silence
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disquiet over schools' moment of silence - Page 2

post #41 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I can't help thinking that all of the fuss and conflict over what's going on in schools could be greatly reduced or even eliminated if parents were given much more choice for the education of their kids.

Parents have loooooads of choices about how to educate their kids. They can put them in private schools. They can put them in charter schools. They can put them in public schools. They can home school them.

Quote:
Parents that want schools that allow (or even mandate) a "moment of silence" (or explicitly prayer), can send their kids to schools that do that. Parents that don't want such a thing can send their kids to schools that don't. Substitute sex education, alternative lifestyle enlightenment, environmental education, creation vs. evolution, etc. for the "moment of silence"/prayer issue and you have a wide variety of things that parents want to be able to choose for their kids.

They can already do that.

Quote:
Furthermore, teachers that don't want to deal with "moments of silence" or prayers in their classrooms would have a wide variety of school employment choices as well.

Nick can speak to this more than I can, but two things are operating here. 1) Demand for teachers, I imagine, varies wildly from town to town. Here in Utah, we're scrambling for teachers to match a massive population bubble that's about to hit us. 2) Teacher attrition is pretty high. What is it, Nick? 50% of new teachers don't make it past 3 years and 70% don't make it past 5? It's something ridiculously high like that. In short, the choice teachers are more likely to make is to just quit.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #42 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Parents have loooooads of choices about how to educate their kids. They can put them in private schools. They can put them in charter schools. They can put them in public schools. They can home school them.

"Of course," you say, "no one is forcing them to go to the public schools." But this argument is weak if not outright false. Those who chose any option other than the public schools are forced to pay twice, once for the schools they are not using and once for the schools they are using. The fact that this limits the choices for many people (almost everyone lower than middle or upper middle class by the way) should be plainly obvious.

This is like the government coming and taking $200 a month from everyone and setting up "free" public grocery stores (after all, food is an essential need, and if the government doesn't do this, people won't be able to feed their kids and if we don't see them in the store once a week we must assume they aren't feeding them at all). But, when the grocery stores don't carry the items you want (for whatever reason) or the service is not to your liking, some advocate of these public grocery stores flippantly says, "Well, you have loads of choices. You can go to a private grocery store. You can grow your own food." To which the response, rightly, is "Sure, yeah, with $200 less to spend a month. Thank you very much."

In fact, when you take this same model: government takes money to setup some "free" public service (e.g., cars, clothing, food, shelter, etc.) that everyone needs or wants, and advocates of it tell people who don't like what's being provided that they have plenty of choices (minus the money they are already paying for the "free" choice) it looks and sounds ridiculously stupid. It's equally stupid for education.

So don't sit there and glibly claim that parents have "loads" of choices. It's a lie.
post #43 of 153
Poppycock. The choices are still there, whether you like it or not.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #44 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Poppycock. The choices are still there, whether you like it or not.

Poppycock back at ya. The choices (not "loads" by any stretch of the definition of that word) are extremely limited and they are practically non-existent for a large portion of the population, namely the middle, lower-middle and lower classes. It may be that the choices that exist are sufficient (maybe even too much) so far as you are concerned, but who are you to limit people's choices?
post #45 of 153
Sslarson is right.

The educational "choices" for most lower-income families are attenuated. I wouldn't conclude only school attendees should pay school taxes though.
post #46 of 153
Come on midwinter, free schools for the poor really limits their choices. If we took away free schools like sslarson wants, then they couldn't afford to send their kids to school at all, which would be a great improvement for them.
post #47 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Poppycock back at ya. The choices (not "loads" by any stretch of the definition of that word) are extremely limited and they are practically non-existent for a large portion of the population, namely the middle, lower-middle and lower classes. It may be that the choices that exist are sufficient (maybe even too much) so far as you are concerned, but who are you to limit people's choices?

I'm not limiting anyone's choices by opposing school prayer.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #48 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm not limiting anyone's choices by opposing school prayer.

Perhaps not, but if you are an advocate of public schools minus any kind of (minimally) voucher or tax credit program that allows all parents much more latitude in choosing where to send their kids for school then you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
post #49 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

free schools for the poor really limits their choices

The point is that the only practical, real choice those folks have is the one the government gives them. Ironically those are the people that would benefit most from greater school choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If we took away free schools like sslarson wants

I never said I wanted that.
post #50 of 153
That discussion is over in the Obama thread. I've been clear about vouchers there. This discussion is about school prayer
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #51 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That discussion is over in the Obama thread.

And now it's here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I've been clear about vouchers there.

Yes you have. You appear to be opposed to what people use them for (e.g., religious schools). You want a say in how your tax dollars are spent, but are opposed when other people decide how their tax dollars are spent (via voucher program choices).

I've said it before and I'll say it again, why don't we just give everyone their money back and let them choose the educational institutions they want based on their own personal preferences. Then none of us has to worry that "our" money is being used for things we are opposed to. Give everyone as free a choice as possible. This is the simplest and most straightforward solution to nearly all of the conflicts and controversies that plague our schools. But...it's "unpatriotic" (or some such nonsense).

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

This discussion is about school prayer

But they're related. The simple fact is that any discussion that revolves around the controversies of what to include or exclude from the school setting ultimately must include a discussion about what choices parents really have (or don't) regarding the educating of their kids.
post #52 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

The point is that the only practical, real choice those folks have is the one the government gives them. Ironically those are the people that would benefit most from greater school choice.

1) They wouldn't even have that choice if we went with your plan. 2) There are ways to provide choices that don't involve scrapping the public schools: Public school choice, which I think all liberals advocate, for one, and private schools providing their own grants based on need, to name another.
Quote:
I never said I wanted that.

Then you didn't say that you would personally advocate a completely privatized system?
post #53 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

1) They wouldn't even have that choice if we went with your plan.

Correct. They wouldn't have the choice of a government run school. But is would be a non sequitur to say they would have no choices at all, or even that they would not have any free choices available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Then you didn't say that you would personally advocate a completely privatized system?

I did say that. But you are assuming that free schooling options would not exist under a private (non-government sponsored) system or, if they did, that I would be opposed to them.
post #54 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Non sequitur.

Non sense. Public schools are a choice that you would take away, but you're accusing others of limiting options.
Quote:
I did say that. But you are assuming that free schooling options would not exist under a private (non-government sponsored) system or, if they did, that I would be opposed to them.

The only thing I'm assuming is that these options could (and in fact do) exist alongside public schools. Again, you want to take away an option - and the most viable one for the poor - not provide new ones that weren't there before. That's fine if that's your position, but don't accuse other people of limiting choices when they're not and you are.
post #55 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Non sense. Public schools are a choice that you would take away, but you're accusing others of limiting options. The only thing I'm assuming is that these options could (and in fact do) exist alongside public schools. Again, you want to take away an option - and the most viable one for the poor - not provide new ones that weren't there before. That's fine if that's your position, but don't accuse other people of limiting choices when they're not and you are.

I'm an advocate of an approach that would provide the greatest number of options for the greatest number of people and does so by allowing every individual family to choose how to spend their own money on educating their kids (much like people do today for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, etc.) There would most certainly be free options available in a private system for those who need it.
post #56 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Perhaps not, but if you are an advocate of public schools minus any kind of (minimally) voucher or tax credit program that allows all parents much more latitude in choosing where to send their kids for school then you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

... there will NEVER be enough schools that provide high level education to the entire population of students.

Now if you want to talk vouchers for low income families exclusively that's a different matter.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #57 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm an advocate of an approach that would provide the greatest number of options for the greatest number of people and does so by allowing every individual family to choose how to spend their own money on educating their kids (much like people do today for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, etc.) There would most certainly be free options available in a private system for those who need it.

As soon as I get a tax credit for not having any children to send to school, and "war vouchers" so that I can decide for myself which military engagements I want to fund, I'll happily discuss a school voucher system backed by public tax dollars.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #58 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

As soon as I get a tax credit for not having any children to send to school

I would absolutely advocate that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

and "war vouchers" so that I can decide for myself which military engagements I want to fund

Well I would probably still favor a common defense (not offensive, invasive, interventionalist) military, I could imagine privatized solutions to that as well.
post #59 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Well I would probably still favor a common defense (not offensive, invasive, interventionalist) military, I could imagine privatized solutions to that as well.

So can I.

We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #60 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

So can I.


That would be SO. FUCKING. COOL.
post #61 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm an advocate of an approach that would provide the greatest number of options for the greatest number of people and does so by allowing every individual family to choose how to spend their own money on educating their kids (much like people do today for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, etc.) There would most certainly be free options available in a private system for those who need it.

That's what you claim in vague generalities, but in reality you just want to remove an option.

It's like claiming that by destroying all public roads built with tax money you're going to increase people's travel options.
post #62 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

That's what you claim in vague generalities, but in reality you just want to remove an option.

Actually, since there are plenty of examples to point to (in the provision of goods and services more critical and essential than education) where people have loads of options (including free options in some cases) in markets that are private and where competitors don't need to compete against "free" government monopolies, I'd say it is more than "vague generalities". Furthermore I propose to change the way that options are made available, which I believe (and many current examples support this) will expand (not reduce) the options that will be available. Because I cannot predict the precise composition of those choices simply makes me less prescient than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's like claiming that by destroying all public roads built with tax money you're going to increase people's travel options.

Since your analogy is nothing at all like what I'm suggesting, it isn't worth addressing.
post #63 of 153
It's pretty awesome how you submit something as more than "vague generalities" in an entire paragraph that contains nothing but.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #64 of 153
Maybe we's is'nt on him's levle.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #65 of 153
Thread Starter 
I nominate BRussell of best use of a twisted analogy using exclusive "or" reasoning.

I never knew that opening a private school required destruction of the public school.

Clearly public and private could never exist at the same time be it roads or schools. One must die so the other can survive.

Or... something nonsensical like that...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I nominate BRussell of best use of a twisted analogy using exclusive "or" reasoning.

I never knew that opening a private school required destruction of the public school.

Clearly public and private could never exist at the same time be it roads or schools. One must die so the other can survive.

Or... something nonsensical like that...

Oh yes, private and public could exist at the same time, as they do today. But sslarson wants there to be no public schools. See above. sslarson thinks there will be lots more options that way.
post #67 of 153
Thread Starter 
So we select his option and are forced to blow up all the currently existing schools? They couldn't be purchased by private interests, run by non-profits or anything like that. Instead we need to dynamite them to the ground and let someone build it all over again.

Or.... something still nonsensical like that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 153
I don't know, maybe he wants the old shut-down school buildings kept and purchased by private groups rather than building all new ones. My guess is that McDonalds™ would prefer to build their own schools from the ground up, but that seems like a fairly minor detail of his "plan to provide more choices," and destroying them would definitely be one way to get there.
post #69 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post


Since your analogy is nothing at all like what I'm suggesting, it isn't worth addressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I nominate BRussell of best use of a twisted analogy using exclusive "or" reasoning.

I never knew that opening a private school required destruction of the public school.

Clearly public and private could never exist at the same time be it roads or schools. One must die so the other can survive.

Or... something nonsensical like that...

Oh for God's sake, BRussel's analogy is perfectly reasonable.

We're talking about not being forced to pay for services we don't want; unless someone wants to argue that this principle should only apply to public schools it's fair to apply the idea to other government services supported by tax money.

No, we don't have to tear up the interstate system, but under Sslarson's notion of how things should work, I shouldn't have to pay for the upkeep and expansion of a system I don't use.

As a practical matter, allowing people to opt out of such funding means we would have a privately run interstate system, supported, presumably, by tolls.

Trouble being, by shifting national infrastructure costs onto only those that use them, the cost of same skyrockets, since you are getting your funding from a much smaller pool. It also means that areas that don't generate revenue get short shrift. Live in area with lightly traveled interstate? Watch it deteriorate, since there is no incentive to spend money on non-profitable venture.

Same goes for schooling-- communities without money aren't going to see much in the way of high quality private schools, and without public schools that, and home schooling, will be the only game in town.

Pretending to desire "choice" for poor and lower middle class communities by eliminating public schooling is a cruel joke. Does anyone really want to claim that whatever meager portion of taxes paid by this demographic explicitly going to public education would be sufficient for any kind of alternative?

What are we talking here, fifty bucks?

As has been discussed at length in other threads, there are really really good reasons for sharing the costs of national programs that we deem to be in the public interest, the chief among them being we can make certain services accessible to every citizen.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #70 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Oh for God's sake, BRussel's analogy is perfectly reasonable.

Not really, because:

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

No, we don't have to tear up the interstate system,

That's exactly what BRussell was claiming I meant:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's like claiming that by destroying all public roads built with tax money you're going to increase people's travel options.


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

it's fair to apply the idea to other government services supported by tax money.

Absolutely. But it doesn't mean we'll come to the same conclusion for everything. And just because we (might) come to the conclusion that providing a service through the government is right for one thing, doesn't automatically mean it is good for all (or any) other services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Trouble being, by shifting national infrastructure costs onto only those that use them, the cost of same skyrockets, since you are getting your funding from a much smaller pool.

Yes. Why is this a bad thing?

(SIDEBAR: The national highway system is actually a ironic example of the potentially negative long-term effects of government programs. The national highway system surely made transportation cheaper for everyone and made owning and driving carbon-producing vehicles much easier and more useful. Nowadays everyone is greatly concerned about the amount of carbon being emitted, at least partly, from vehicles driving across that national highway system. So here is an example of something that might not have developed to the same extent if it were not a government program and people may have been more likely to live closer to work, shopping, etc and mass transit systems might have developed to handle much shorter, localized transport needs, with fewer long-haul highways, possibly even just trains.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Same goes for schooling-- communities without money aren't going to see much in the way of high quality private schools, and without public schools that, and home schooling, will be the only game in town.

Maybe. Maybe not. More importantly, there doesn't appear to be any direct correlation between greater funding and greater educational achievement. So are you asserting that people with less funding will not be able to achieve an education?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

there are really really good reasons for sharing the costs of national programs that we deem to be in the public interest, the chief among them being we can make certain services accessible to every citizen.

Perhaps we should do this for food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Surely we can all agree that it is in the "public interest" to make each one of these products and services accessible to every citizen.
post #71 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Public school choice, which I think all liberals advocate...

Have you talked to a teachers' union lately?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #72 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Perhaps we should do this for food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Surely we can all agree that it is in the "public interest" to make each one of these products and services accessible to every citizen.

Sounds good to me, especially where children are concerned, who shouldn't suffer malnutrition, lack of clothing, lack of shelter, and lack of minimal transportation to things like public schools or health clinics just because their parents, for good reasons or bad, can't provide for them.

We easily have enough wealth as a society to provide such a minimum standard of basic support for everyone, and everyone benefits when desperation doesn't leave crime as the only other option, and when education provides an exit from poverty for those who take advantage of it.

Think of it as a form of "national defense", since that seems to be the only thing you can relate to.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #73 of 153
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I disagree. I think that lots of people in the US identify as Christian, but I think that this hardcore political wing is a small but very vocal and very organized minority within that population. And since they're the linchpin of GOP electoral math, they get a great deal of attention.

I really don't care to deal with this again. Something drives the legislators, be it a vocal 10% and passive 40% or any other percentages starting at 80% and working down. They clearly do more than get attention, they get legislation in multiple states, and not just red ones.

Quote:
Believe me, I understand the problems with siphoning off classtime. But this, again, is not equivalent to prayer.

I'm not sure you see this properly. This is time in which they are allowed time to exercise their rights. The state is not endorsing the activity, it is merely not repressing it. This is why I try to put it in the context of the entire day. You grab children for that long, you are going to run into more personal issues and more rights related to them.

Quote:
I don't care about whether or not the atheist kid feels put-upon. I care about the state mandating that time be taken out of the day to pray, first, because I don't think my atheist tax dollars should be used to pay for prayer, and second, because it's just stupid. Are kids able to pray silently whenever they want? Yes. Why do we need some kind of special time devoted to it? The answer is simple: Don Wildmon wants it.

I had to look up the reference there. Are kids able to silently pray whenever they want though? I'm not so sure that can always happen unless there are guarantees. I've read dozens of examples of private religious student speech being censured. In the article above, the student doesn't object to the time, she objects to having to watch others pray. How would this change if the prayer were simply allowed silently in the course of regular classroom instruction?

Let me slap that section from the article in here again.. it is most relevant here.

Not because the law meant lost learning time in her honors math class -- which would be 15 seconds shorter -- but because "it was clear that we're supposed to sit and pray, or sit and watch other people pray," said Dawn, who is an atheist.

Quote:
Indeed. And if they're made to wear a scarlet "A," their rights aren't being infringed!

If you care to explain how sitting silently during this time clearly marks them for shame and derision, I would appreciate it because I don't see it. They are not going to somehow become MORE of an atheist during that time. I don't see what it changes.

Quote:
Depends. Have they actually been asked? Or was this something that got pushed through by that small but vocal minority?

Well someone noted in this thread the overriding of a veto threat by the governor of Ohio for example. (Ronaldo) We know it is pretty evenly split in terms of voting patterns but something well beyond that would be required to override a veto. I don't think that could be accomplished by a vocal minority. It could be different in other states of course.

I'm not sure but I think this might be the article Ronaldo was referencing. It has the same quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Nick can speak to this more than I can, but two things are operating here. 1) Demand for teachers, I imagine, varies wildly from town to town. Here in Utah, we're scrambling for teachers to match a massive population bubble that's about to hit us. 2) Teacher attrition is pretty high. What is it, Nick? 50% of new teachers don't make it past 3 years and 70% don't make it past 5? It's something ridiculously high like that. In short, the choice teachers are more likely to make is to just quit.

Last I read it was 50% attrition at the five year mark. I'll have to add though that it ends up sounding like a pro-voucher argument. Your contention becomes do what the public wants via public schools or quit as choices. The choice becomes even more evident when students don't have the choice of quitting to avoid loss or rights, opportunities or failure to have services provided.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm not sure you see this properly. This is time in which they are allowed time to exercise their rights. The state is not endorsing the activity, it is merely not repressing it. This is why I try to put it in the context of the entire day. You grab children for that long, you are going to run into more personal issues and more rights related to them.

And what "rights" are you referencing?

Seriously, I don't have a horse in this race (as I'm agnostic), seeing as I don't exactly know what happens in state schools during these moments of silence.

I might have a problem if 90% of the students pulled out a cross, a rosary, got on their knees, made the sign of the cross, placed their hands together in the praying position, and silently mouthed Our Father ... as this is an active form of peer pressure.

What about a student's right not to participate in these moments of silence?

And as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, is there anyone who would remember their times of prayer in school more so than their times of play (e. g. recess time)?

I can remember hundreds (if not thousands) of real events during recess, yet I can't remember a single moment or instance related to prayer (or praying).


And it all started with that 2nd grade catechism, with it's vivid description of Hell, and my desire to visit Hell firsthand, to see if the catechism description of Hell was accurate. Funny how the factually unexplainable casts seeds of doubt into one's mind with respect to the PC conventional wisdom.

And that's exactly why I think moments of silence are in fact detrimental to everyone's faith since no specific faith is being espoused to begin with.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #75 of 153
Honestly, I can't believe people are getting worked up about this. I think that shows us more about the state of affairs than anything, here. Patience is a lost virtue, so it seems. 15 seconds? You have to be kidding me.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #76 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Honestly, I can't believe people are getting worked up about this. I think that shows us more about the state of affairs than anything, here. Patience is a lost virtue, so it seems. 15 seconds? You have to be kidding me.

I know what you mean. 15 seconds is hardly worth arguing over. The people advocating for this should just give up and let their kids pray at home or in church.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #77 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Have you talked to a teachers' union lately?

I'm a member of one.
post #78 of 153
[CENTER]

See Sherman v. Township High School District 214 (8 page PDF Restraining Order)[/CENTER]

Quote:
Plaintiff argues regarding the merits of the instant lawsuit that the statute in question is void because it is unconstitutionally vague.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 153
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And what "rights" are you referencing?

Seriously, I don't have a horse in this race (as I'm agnostic), seeing as I don't exactly know what happens in state schools during these moments of silence.

Well I'm pretty sure you have participated in a moment of silence, even if it wasn't in a school setting. The right is the first amendment right to religious freedom.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Quote:
I might have a problem if 90% of the students pulled out a cross, a rosary, got on their knees, made the sign of the cross, placed their hands together in the praying position, and silently mouthed Our Father ... as this is an active form of peer pressure.

You might which is likely why the law was written. You don't have a right to prevent the students from expressing their religion. The state cannot endorse it but they cannot prevent it on an individual level. I say this because even outside of these moments of silence, actions like you note have happened during the free times others have said these prayers should occur. People who do not wish to watch others pray, have called the prayers demonstrations and prevented their free exercise, If 90% of the students are Catholic, and it is before their meal at lunch, you might see them pray the same way. (I'm not Catholic and have no idea about to what degree these similarities would occur)

Quote:
What about a student's right not to participate in these moments of silence?

No one can tell what is going on in their minds. Your linked cartoon is probably dead on with my thoughts being exactly those of the teacher in it.

Quote:
And as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, is there anyone who would remember their times of prayer in school more so than their times of play (e. g. recess time)?

Since you mentioned recess, I'm going to assume you are talking about elementary school. I don't recall ever praying in elementary school.

Quote:
And as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, is there anyone who would remember their times of prayer in school more so than their times of play (e. g. recess time)?

I can remember hundreds (if not thousands) of real events during recess, yet I can't remember a single moment or instance related to prayer (or praying).

I don't really think the comparative enjoyment of a religious and non-religious experiences is a legal argument for denying rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Honestly, I can't believe people are getting worked up about this. I think that shows us more about the state of affairs than anything, here. Patience is a lost virtue, so it seems. 15 seconds? You have to be kidding me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I know what you mean. 15 seconds is hardly worth arguing over. The people advocating for this should just give up and let their kids pray at home or in church.

I agree. However I also see the passive-aggressiveness as well. You lament it isn't worth fighting over, then go file the complaint at the court house.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well I'm pretty sure you have participated in a moment of silence, even if it wasn't in a school setting. The right is the first amendment right to religious freedom.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof



You might which is likely why the law was written. You don't have a right to prevent the students from expressing their religion. The state cannot endorse it but they cannot prevent it on an individual level. I say this because even outside of these moments of silence, actions like you note have happened during the free times others have said these prayers should occur. People who do not wish to watch others pray, have called the prayers demonstrations and prevented their free exercise, If 90% of the students are Catholic, and it is before their meal at lunch, you might see them pray the same way. (I'm not Catholic and have no idea about to what degree these similarities would occur)



No one can tell what is going on in their minds. Your linked cartoon is probably dead on with my thoughts being exactly those of the teacher in it.



Since you mentioned recess, I'm going to assume you are talking about elementary school. I don't recall ever praying in elementary school.



I don't really think the comparative enjoyment of a religious and non-religious experiences is a legal argument for denying rights.





I agree. However I also see the passive-aggressiveness as well. You lament it isn't worth fighting over, then go file the complaint at the court house.

I had you in mind when I found that cartoon, given your previous comments in this thread.

And I think we're pretty much in agreement on the moment of silence issue. But did you read the PDF link that I posted above? The issue seems to be with vagueness of this law and perhaps that a common time is set aside for reflection on whatever AND prayer. An ill defined prayer time set aside. Why not let the students themselves decide how to practice their beliefs individually or in groups, and at times, of their own choosing outside of the classroom proper?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

My 90% example is an attempt to define a similarity of prayer behavior which would be significantly above what one would find from a "random" population of students in a public school setting. Proof of this "coordinated random behavior" would be needed outside of the action itself. But even there if we could find some proof of a coordinated effort how do we reconcile this proof with our rights of assembly, free speech, and religion?

And yes, I've participated in many moments of silence (and prayer) with those who regularly practice their faith(s), out of respect for their beliefs and my own uncertain beliefs.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Disquiet over schools' moment of silence