Prayer in schools? Aww, crap...

[Darth Wong]

<sigh> OK, you asked for it ...

You appear utterly incapable of understanding the concept of allegory. Well no frikkin duh the two situations are not the exact same--a child can tell you that without much of a problem.

Then you admit that the analogy was flawed (so flawed that a child could see it), so it was a red herring fallacy, made for rhetorical impact rather than logical value. Concession accepted.

And you hold that personal displays of religious worship should be entirely private legally and morally.

Strawman fallacy: I never said "entirely private". I only said they should not be conducted in schools or similar public institutions. If some guy wants to pray on the streetcorner or at the park (which is not particularly regulated, hence no hypocrisy), that's fine.

Of course, there is no legal justification for said policy and the moral appears to be based more on a desire to be free from the existence of certain lifestyles/belief structures in the world around you than anything else.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. Your attempt to divine my motivations behind my various arguments on separation of church and state is a fallacious attempt to change the subject.

1. Three short words: "Before School Hours."

Two words: red herring fallacy. My argument relates to the fact that it occurs on school grounds while other students are around. The fact that they do it just before school starts in the morning does not affect the point; it is a nitpick.

2. Schools regulate informal groupings, however they do not break up informal groupings without sufficient rationale. The possibility of coercion in an environment mired in it is not usually enough.

Yes they do. See aforementioned examples of youth gangs. Many schools even ban clothing which suggests any kind of gang affiliation. Similarly, pro-Nazi demonstrations would be forced off school grounds.

3. What, do you think Christian students are going to shut up and not 'coerce' other students about Christianity when they're not gathered in a group in front of the school?

Red herring fallacy. My argument specifically dealt with the issue of group action, which is inherently more intrusive and more coercive than individual action. The fact that these idiots would still shove their religion in their face on an individual basis is irrelevant. Do not change the subject.

Doesn't make any difference. If they were marching for Nazism, they would get their asses kicked off the goddamned lawn.

I think paraphrasing your point is more effective:
Yes, but you don't see people praying while preaching the mass murder of entire races on the FUCKING FRONT LAWN OF THE SCHOOL! What part of this don't you understand?

Slothful induction fallacy. I made the point that schools would stop a Neo-Nazi demonstration, thus contradicting your claim that they cannot eject people who are behaving in an offensive manner. You retort by saying that they don't do it on the front lawn, thus missing the entire point: if they don't do it on the front lawn, they don't get ejected (indeed, there are many white supremacists attending schools across North America). It is their public, group activity which draws disciplinary action. The analogy is quite accurate.

After already having been forced to pay taxes for a school which I cannot use because I don't subscribe to the majority religion? What the fuck kind of argument is that?

The same argument that quite a few folks of similar mind to yourself make about those of us who have been forced to pay taxes for a school which we cannot use because we don't subscribe to the majority culture?

False analogy fallacy. In my case, my children are being subjected to a belief system which I do not agree with, ie- there is an extra indoctrination content being added to the school's mandate. In your case, your children are not being subjected to any particular belief system; indeed, the whole point is that no one can hove his beliefs down anyone else's throat, so you still have freedom to teach them your beliefs at home without having to worry about someone trying to indoctrinate them in any belief system at school.

When have I seen you make your point about freedom of speech? What, am I supposed to be clairvoyant? If I don't read your mind, does that make me a frikkin moron?

If you post on my web board and attempt to debate with me without bothering to read any of the related material on the attached website, then yes, you are a fucking moron. I don't like having to repeat myself.

More like I'm trying to exit this debate so that I can put my mind on more important things, like say, mechanics homework and the like. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching a good debater unable to see that his own argument can be paralleled and reversed for those of opposite opinion, yet he would consider such an opinion unjustified and "fucking nonsense."

Your attempts to "parallel and reverse" the argument are false analogy fallacies, in that they casually gloss over serious distinctions (for example, the difference between having an active belief system shoved down your throat and entering an absence of active belief systems; one is active, the other is passive).

You want to continue this, then we can. Personally, I don't think you have a valid or consistent view, legally or morally, but I simply don't have the time or psychological willpower to attempt to debate something with no purpose other than to make each other feel more convinced in our own "righteousness" on the matter.

You think I have an inconsistent view because you are incapable of seeing things logically. You obviously view secularism as a religion, thus you view this as a competition between one intrusive faith and another. Sorry, but the absence of religion is not a religion.

[HemlockGrey]

Great rant and all, but...

Two words: red herring fallacy

Two words?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Stormbringer]

Something's started at my school recently, where a bunch of students gather in a circle out front and pray to God, before class starts.

I know what you mean. I have the Campus Crusade for Christ next to me. As individuals, some of them are decent people, as a whole they are obnoxious. They do the same sort of prayer-in-public-and-put-up-stupid-flyers stuff most of those kind of groups do. With the thing walls I'm forced to listen to their meetings though. It was pretty annoying since they meet often (2-3 times a week).

Funny thing is, one day during one of their gatherings I put on Rob Zombie "The Sinister Urge", just cranked it, and listened to it a few times. Since then they've been so much more considerate.

Here's my question, though: do you guys think it would be worth it to set up a table there and start distributing some of the flyers from Positive Atheism?

Go for it. You may actually do some good. At the very least you get parity with the fundies. And just think of the shitstorm you can create if they try to stop you.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Strawman fallacy: I never said "entirely private". I only said they should not be conducted in schools or similar public institutions. If some guy wants to pray on the streetcorner or at the park (which is not particularly regulated, hence no hypocrisy), that's fine.

What exactly is the difference if students were praying on the school grounds or, say, across the street? Same amount of public access, so is it really that different? So if you're opposed to praying on school grounds, but not opposed to praying across the street, well...umm....just pick one to go with because they're basically the same thing. The same people could go to either place. They are both open to the public and it wouldn't make much of a difference if it were on school grounds or across the street. Unless you argue that it is in close proximity to a public institution. But you never said anything about proximity.

[neoolong]

Schools have regulations about group meetings. By allowing a prayer circle it takes school resources and uses them in a religious way. I know my parents did not pay taxes for that. Of course I'm looking at it like an economist so I take into account opportunity cost as well, which makes it even more costly. Uh, the next best alternative is what is meant by opportunity cost. The street on the other hand is not as regulated and therefore is open to free expression, within limits, such as noise laws, etc. Overall I agree Wong that religious prayer group things should not be allowed in public schools, even before school. I respect a person's right to express themselves, but I shouldn't have to pay for them to be able to express it in my face and not be allowed to just walk away. Basically, on the street I can walk away if I don't agree with what is said. Another person has the ability to walk away if they don't agree with what I say. On school grounds however, and sometimes I have to go to school early, I don't have that freedom. I'm forced by school rules to stay on campus and therefore am forced to hear the prayers, even if I don't agree with what is said. Thus, there is a difference between school grounds and a public street.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

What you say is true. But this was outside. Not inside the building.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

And it's funny you mention opportunity costs. I just took an economics test yesterday regarding basic economic principles (trade-offs, opportunity costs, needs, wants, etc.) lol

[neoolong]

Actually it doesn't matter if it is outside. Sometimes I have to be at school before class officially starts. Whether I was inside or outside, I could oftentimes still hear it. Place doesn't matter if it's on school grounds.

[White Cat]

I have a couple responses to some specific quotes, and then I'll post my general thoughts.

If your kids went to a school where a large contingent of satanists were openly worshipping in the halls and grounds, are you saying it wouldn't bother you?

Whether or not it would "bother me" is irrelevant. They should still be allowed to do it.

I only said [private displays of religious worship] should not be conducted in schools or similar public institutions. If some guy wants to pray on the streetcorner or at the park (which is not particularly regulated, hence no hypocrisy), that's fine.

I don't see the difference. Your tax dollars pay for parks and street corners, too. (This applies to Neoolong's argument about "taking resources" and "opportunity cost", too.)

What do you mean by "particularly regulated"?

My stance on the issue is as follows: Any group of students should be allowed to meet on school grounds and express/promote their views on whatever subject they desire (Christianity, Satanism, athiesm, politics, computers, chess, etc.) with the following restrictions: 1) they don't disrupt other students by being too loud; 2) they don't block pedestrian or vehicular traffic; 3) they don't interfere with normal school activities (eg. gathering aroud the flagpole during an official ceremony, or meeting in a classroom when a class is scheduled there); and 4) possibly some other stipulations which I can't think of right now.

If there is a conflict between two groups over an area (eg. the Bible club and the chess club both want to use Room 21 at 3:00pm), then it should go to whoever got there first or whoever signed up for it first.

Note the all of the above applies to student gatherings of any kind; it does not give preferential treatment to any religious or non-religious group. It is also applicable to gatherings of the general public in other public areas.

[Darth Yoshi]

At my school there's a Christian club, and they started doing what's been described here. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as they don't persistantly try to get me to pray with them.

[Darth Wong]

If your school is similarly permissive of neo-Nazis, Satanists, KKK meetings, cross-burnings, or public desecrations of Christian symbols such as mutilated Jesus crucifixes, and blasphemous sayings or foul language on T-shirts, then I say: fine. They're all for free speech, and at least they're consistent.

But if they are NOT that permissive, then they are making a special exception for one case, which is no longer freedom of speech: it is establishment of religion. Get it?

[neoolong]

White Cat, my argument about taking resources is basically this. I have to pay taxes for public schools. That money at least in some way pays for a place for a prayer circle, or whatever. The opportunity cost is the option that would have occurred had there not been a prayer circle. Now let's say I'm taking a test. I am bothered by prayers, because as noise, it's distracting. The opportunity cost, is the value of the silence on increasing my scores. Thus, I suffer in my studies because of a school provided religous ritual. But to make matters worse, I have to pay to let them make me do worse on tests. Hence, it should not be allowed.

Note: My example applies to any organized activity, but in my experience the religious ones are the ones that make the most noise and are the most distracting. The reason I believe is that when I was in high school, my principal, before he got removed for embezzlement, was a doctor in religious studies, specifically Christian studies and therefore had a bias. I think you know what type of group activities got preferential treatment.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Actually, my school is consistent in not allowing anyone to do jack shit. My English teacher calls my high school a prison. lol

[White Cat]

White Cat, my argument about taking resources is basically this. I have to pay taxes for public schools. That money at least in some way pays for a place for a prayer circle, or whatever. The opportunity cost is the option that would have occurred had there not been a prayer circle.

But the same thing applies to people praying on street corners and in parks.

Now let's say I'm taking a test. I am bothered by prayers, because as noise, it's distracting. The opportunity cost, is the value of the silence on increasing my scores. Thus, I suffer in my studies because of a school provided religous ritual. But to make matters worse, I have to pay to let them make me do worse on tests. Hence, it should not be allowed.

It would have to be an awfully loud meeting at the flagpole to distract people who are studying inside the school. Anyway, I already specified that any student gatherings (religious or otherwise) should be restricted to times and places where they don't interfere with official school activities.

Note: My example applies to any organized activity, but in my experience the religious ones are the ones that make the most noise and are the most distracting. The reason I believe is that when I was in high school, my principal, before he got removed for embezzlement, was a doctor in religious studies, specifically Christian studies and therefore had a bias. I think you know what type of group activities got preferential treatment.

This is a red herring: what does a Christian principal who got fired for embezzlement have to do with whether religious groups are noisier and more distracting? And even if it wasn't a red herring, it's a hasty generalization: one incident doesn't show that religious groups are noisier and more distracting. And even if it wasn't a hasty generalization, it's red herring again: I already specified that any group (religious or otherwise) would be forced to stop their gatherings if they were too noisy and distracting to official school activities.

[White Cat]

If your school is similarly permissive of neo-Nazis, Satanists, KKK meetings, cross-burnings, or public desecrations of Christian symbols such as mutilated Jesus crucifixes, and blasphemous sayings or foul language on T-shirts, then I say: fine. They're all for free speech, and at least they're consistent.

But if they are NOT that permissive, then they are making a special exception for one case, which is no longer freedom of speech: it is establishment of religion. Get it?

I agree with your overall statement, but disagree with some of your examples, since they're not all equivilant:

Satanists

Satanism is a religion, and therefore Satanists must be allowed to meet on school grounds if other religion-related groups are.

public desecration of Christian symbols, blasphemous sayings on T-shirts

These deal directly with religion, and therefore must be allowed under the above conditions of equality. It should be noted, however, that the reverse is also true: public erection of pro-Christian (and other religious) symbols and religious slogans on T-shirts must also be allowed under these conditions. (Of course, no one should be allowed to erect a symbol and leave it there indefinitely; it must be taken down as soon as the gathering is over.)

cross-burnings

This falls into the previous category. However, burning a cross (or most other things) would almost certainly constitute a fire hazard, and therefore shouldn't be allowed for that separate reason.

neo-Nazis, KKK meetings, foul language on T-shirts

These have no direct connection to religion, and therefore their legality isn't affected by the legality of religious gatherings. I fail to see how allowing all religious groups (and atheist groups) to gather, but banning the neo-Nazis, could be considered "establishment of religion."

The first two are affected by how other political groups are treated; if you allow the Republican/Democrat/whatever youth clubs to meet, the neo-Nazis must be given the same priviliege.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with your overall statement, but disagree with some of your examples, since they're not all equivilant:
<snip>
neo-Nazis, KKK meetings, foul language on T-shirts

These have no direct connection to religion, and therefore their legality isn't affected by the legality of religious gatherings. I fail to see how allowing all religious groups (and atheist groups) to gather, but banning the neo-Nazis, could be considered "establishment of religion."

Why should the lack of religion be a factor? Are you saying that a religion should have special privileges that a political group does not? That is establishment of religion, is it not? Are you saying that a religious group should be able to do things that an atheist group (for example) could not, since atheism is not a religion? That is also establishment of religion, is it not?

A lot of people seem to think religions deserve special protections and rights under the law. This attitude is, in and of itself, unfair treatment. It elevates religion above the level of other activities, and in so doing, it violates the establishment clause, which is not denominationally specific; it outlaws establishment of ANY religion in ANY way, not just one religion over others.

With the exception of my cross-burning example (you make a good point about the fire hazard), I still maintain that all of those examples are equivalent. Ban one, and you should ban them all. Christianity is just as offensive to some people as neo-Nazism is to others (the word "crusade" is hardly as benign in the Muslim world as it is here, for example).

[neoolong]

White Cat - My point about resources applies but you have to look at the whole argument. In a park or on the street I can say something and if you don't like it you can walk away. The opposite also applies. It is equitable. However, at school I am forced to pay for something that affects me negatively and cannot walk away. I prefer to use the resource in a secular way, silence, and yet since it is being used in a religious way I am not only paying for it with money but also in how it affects my school work. Basically, the street is more open and we both have the same freedom to say something and to walk away from hearing something. I am willing to pay because I get same rights as you would. At school, I do not have the same rights as the Christian group(their right to practice supercedes my right to silence) so why should I have to pay to give them the resources to intrude on my rights?


Trust me the noise was loud enough considering my class was the closest to the flagpole. I do agree that the activities should be limited to when they don't interfere with official school activities. Unfortunately at my school students aren't allowed to gather like that until official school activities have already begun so it doesn't apply in my case.

My example is not a red herring. I said what I have encountered in my experience. I can't speak for anybody else's so I did not and I did not generalize. However, other groups have gotten in trouble for doing the same things that the Christian group did. Yet, the Christian group did not get in trouble. This did occur with more than one other group. My point wasn't that religious groups are more noisy or more distracting, just that even though it was more noisy the Christian group did not get punished for it. Considering that the only difference was one of religion logically that would be the reason for that difference in treatment. Again, this is in my experience. I was just conveying how religious organizations and non-religious organziations were treated at my school. It was just an aside to my points and provided a little background to where I was coming from. Note: the principal wasn't fired, he was moved up to a position where he couldn't screw anything up.

I apologize for not quoting the specific passages, but I'm trying to figure out how that system works. My three paragraphs apply to your three paragraphs. I'll try next time to use the quote system.

[XPViking]

I think I can understand where Mr. Wong is coming from. I believe the reason why some people may not feel the reason that a prayer circle is so bad is because it is perceived as less threatening than, say, a KKK or Satanists meeting. In many respects, we are dealing with people’s perspectives on said groups which may cloud a person’s judgment.

So should schools (which are funded by Joe Public) promote diversity for students in regards to different political views and religion? Or should schools concentrate on clubs that are relatively benign, compared to the aforementioned categories, and offer only sports and social clubs (debate, chess, etc…). That is, keep religion and politics out of the school. Discussion of such things are allowed but only in a private manner. In both cases I think that schools may have good intentions (exposing students to a variety of clubs will hopefully mold them into well-rounded people) but may not do so well in the execution.

I hope I don’t commit the slippery slope fallacy here, but what if some parents are offended by, say, the chess club? Unlikely perhaps, but what could be done? Ban the chess club to appease the offended party or uphold the schools mission of facilitating different clubs? I suppose part of the decision to ban the offending club would be in relation to the number and size of complainants.

XPViking

[Questor]

[quote="Darth Wong"]<sigh> OK, you asked for it ...
<Snip>

Watch out, it's the IMPERIAL SMACKDOWN

[XPViking]

quote="Darth Wong"]<sigh> OK, you asked for it ...
<Snip>

Watch out, it's the IMPERIAL SMACKDOWN - Jason L. Miles

For who?

XPViking

[Questor]

quote="Darth Wong"]<sigh> OK, you asked for it ...
<Snip>

Watch out, it's the IMPERIAL SMACKDOWN - Jason L. Miles

For who?

XPViking

Kahlis

[XPViking]

Jason,

After perusing through this thread, it would seem to me that the Imperial Smackdown TM has already been applied to Kahlis. Maybe you should check out page four.

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

I think I can understand where Mr. Wong is coming from. I believe the reason why some people may not feel the reason that a prayer circle is so bad is because it is perceived as less threatening than, say, a KKK or Satanists meeting. In many respects, we are dealing with people’s perspectives on said groups which may cloud a person’s judgment.

I think that for a lot of people, if they happen to be fond of the group, they are incapable of seeing what's wrong with that group using school resources.

So should schools (which are funded by Joe Public) promote diversity for students in regards to different political views and religion?

Yes, in the sense that they should discuss them from a sociological or anthropological viewpoint. They should not necessarily permit unlimited free expression of political and/or religious activities or rituals on school grounds, particularly any activity which is intrinsically exclusionary (religious rituals are exclusionary since you must subscribe to the religion to participate, neo-Nazism is exclusionary for obvious reasons, a PETA demonstration would be exclusionary of all meat-eaters, etc).

Or should schools concentrate on clubs that are relatively benign, compared to the aforementioned categories, and offer only sports and social clubs (debate, chess, etc…). That is, keep religion and politics out of the school. Discussion of such things are allowed but only in a private manner. In both cases I think that schools may have good intentions (exposing students to a variety of clubs will hopefully mold them into well-rounded people) but may not do so well in the execution.

All of those things can and should be discussed, but in an academic environment, rather than allowing advocacy groups to run wild on school grounds.

I hope I don’t commit the slippery slope fallacy here, but what if some parents are offended by, say, the chess club? Unlikely perhaps, but what could be done? Ban the chess club to appease the offended party or uphold the schools mission of facilitating different clubs? I suppose part of the decision to ban the offending club would be in relation to the number and size of complainants.

Or the fact that the chess club is not an exclusionary activity. Some parents are offended by sex education too, or even certain aspects of scientific education (eg- geoloy, biology for those fundies) but that's part of the education mandate.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Something's started at my school recently, where a bunch of students gather in a circle out front and pray to God, before class starts.

I found it quite amusing because the news reporters covering it were blathering about how they were "making a difference." Yeah, I know! Let's not go to the trouble of volunteering at a homeless shelter, or donating to United Way, or something like that! We can pray to God, and say that we're helping the less-fortunate!

Here's my question, though: do you guys think it would be worth it to set up a table there and start distributing some of the flyers from Positive Atheism?

That's a great idea, with just one problem. They're not trying to convert anyone. By passing out leaflets, you are. Besides, who the fuck does it hurt? If they're that worried about their test scores, they won't be in school with the rest of you pathetic savages long anyway. Quit your moaning.

[XPViking]

Darth Wong,

Okay. So you would permit religious and political groups within a school as long as they don't turn into an advocacy group or conduct exclusionary activities (religious rituals, etc...). Am I understanding you correctly here? Would you say that such groups must adopt a "open for everyone who is interested" policy? Would it be safe to assume that the group must have some authority to discipline members or kick them out, as long as it is in accordance with the overall school mandate regarding such activities? I'm thinking here that if one member tries to hurt another member, then it should be obvious that the offender must be removed. Things might get dicey if one member of a group is causing other members distress. For example if a Christian who is part of a Wiccan group keeps on handing out leaflets all the time (or even perhaps praying). I would think that most students would gravitate towards certain groups which are aligned with their interests and, for the most part, things would sort themselves out.

As an interesting aside, high schools in Korea permit the formation of religious "associations" (Christian and Buddhist) within the school itself. That is, these groups seem to have the formal approval of the school authorities. Mind you, this is coming from the mouth of my office colleague and perhaps things have changed. Either way, it would be interesting to dig deeper. Whether or not they do prayer circles or other religious activities remains to be seen.

Now I have a sensitive question for you. How would you classify an atheist club? Let's suppose you tone down the name (dealing with people's perspective here - which is not always logical) and call it something like "The Free Thinking Club" or something similar. Would you be okay with a group like that in a school? Do atheists have such clubs set up in schools already? I hope I'm not jumping the gun here, but I would assume that some kind of atheist club would be okay with you?

Please don't read anything into my comments. I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

To address one of your quotes:

I think that for a lot of people, if they happen to be fond of the group, they are incapable of seeing what's wrong with that group using school resources. - Darth Wong

True. Since a school is but a reflection of the community then it is hardly surprising. That is, a school within in a predominantly religious community (I don't mean here small towns, just the area immediately surrounding the school) might have a greater chance of having some kind of religious group set up. I think a person might have a case if the prayer circle is somehow circumnavigating the school's policy towards group gatherings. And does the school policy contradict the overall law of the land? I'm wondering if cases like this have already been through the legal system.

XPViking