Christian school.

[Lagmonster]

If you're an atheist, then don't pray. If he does not agree to follow the school rules (of which we don't see the requirement of actual praying), then the true disagreement is with his parents. I still don't see a reason to be rude to the school.

Despite your declared derision for people who are not assertive in the face of parents and community, he may not have much of a choice to declare his intention to leave the faith and, obviously, its associated organizations. I assume you will not suggest that there are no social repercussions for someone to step out of the closet on a matter such as this? Cowards and hypocrites they might be, but there are endless examples of cases where the consequences attached to rebellion is not worth it, particularly in the case of religion, where differences can rend families apart.

[Zoink]

My choices are my own, and if I chose to play along with someone else's beliefs (broadest term), does that then make me "spineless" or "polite"?

You can make whatever choices you want, which could be for any number of reasons. Are you doing it because you have a great respect for Christianity? Because you don't want to get kicked out?

In this situation the question is: why should Christians be offended when non-Christians don't participate? The athiest isn't the one lacking social sensibilities. Someone not bowing their head should elicite no more of a response than "oh, so he's not a Christian".

Instead the response is "He's not bowing his head, he's disrespecting me and my religion". *BUT* that's not what is happening. The Christians are disrespecting the athiest's basic right to freedom of religion (or lack of thereof) and the freedom to practice (or not practice) that religion. The athiest is in *no* way telling the Christian to alter his/her behavior.

"Thou shall not bow down before false idols"... you would think Christians of all people should get the point?

[Lagmonster]

Instead the response is "He's not bowing his head, he's disrespecting me and my religion". *BUT* that's not what is happening. The Christians are disrespecting the athiest's basic right to freedom of religion (or lack of thereof) and the freedom to practice (or not practice) that religion.

Well.....not to put too fine a point on it, but he's in their school, at their service. He may have been forced to be there, but he's not in a public location where the freedom of religion bit applies. You couldn't go into a Jewish temple and start holding a Hindu service, for example.

[Kuroneko]

Since these schools are now getting government money through vouchers and not respecting civil rights, they deserve every bit of rude and obnoxious treatment they get.

Such schools are now funded by the government? Suprising... well, actually, it isn't, really, but I wish it was. Here, I agree with you completely. There is no excuse for neglect of civil right by the government, or that of the schools funded by the government. They deserve much worse than obnoxious treatment.

[Kuroneko]

If you're an atheist, then don't pray. If he does not agree to follow the school rules (of which we don't see the requirement of actual praying), then the true disagreement is with his parents. I still don't see a reason to be rude to the school.

Despite your declared derision for people who are not assertive in the face of parents and community, he may not have much of a choice to declare his intention to leave the faith and, obviously, its associated organizations. I assume you will not suggest that there are no social repercussions for someone to step out of the closet on a matter such as this? Cowards and hypocrites they might be, but there are endless examples of cases where the consequences attached to rebellion is not worth it, particularly in the case of religion, where differences can rend families apart.

You misunderstand, though I probably should have elaborated on this. I simply object to trying to have it both ways. If he rejects his faith but lacks the courage to rebel against those religious institutions, I will not condemn him. But if he stays in the same institutions while disrespecting their rules, it's like he's trying to rebel and not rebel at the same time. He tries to be a rebel but is unwilling to pay the social price. That's the part I label as hypocrisy.

[Zoink]

He may have been forced to be there, but he's not in a public location where the freedom of religion bit applies.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say he has the right to practice any religion on private property. Rather that the school is the one who is choosing to remove his basic right, not the other way around.

If you choose to curtail the basic freedoms of others on your own property, who's the one being disrespectful?

You can't force anyone to follow a religion in any setting. If its private property, you can ask them to leave, but that's because you can ask anyone to leave. Just because he would be the one leaving doesn't mean he's "in the wrong" or that he's the one being disrespectful.

I can think of numerous examples of this being the case (usually involving people intolerant of others religion/race), let's say, I tell a Jewish guy I invited into my house "sorry I don't allow yarmulkes, either take it off or leave", that's pretty disrespectful, even if I'm allowed doing it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I would fully expect the same respect from a Christian, althugh they may give no more respect to me than you seem to be willing to give.

My choices are my own, and if I chose to play along with someone else's beliefs (broadest term), does that then make me "spineless" or "polite"?

...The question is that of making a rational judgement and standing by it. Having respect for the unfounded, irrational, superstitious "beliefs" of others is nothing more then a cop-out; your either refusing to make a moral judgement or your too much of a coward to stand by it. A case can be made for not being outward about such a judgement- when there are substancial negative consequences, but when there are no consequences it is inexcusable. The term most people use to refer to such individuals is "spineless".

...Regardless of which interpretation LadyTevar meant, the fact remains that she does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.

Thank you for proving me right, you fucking idiot.

[XPViking]

I've visited Buddhist temples in Thailand. Out of respect for the people, I took off my shoes and sat on the carpet quietly for a few minutes and then left.

When in Korea, I would rise when an elderly person would come in the room. I would also bow if the occassion demanded it. Can't say I've attended any Buddhist services here. Mind you, I've stood up for an elderly person wherever I've been, but that's just a part of my upbringing.

When in Korea, I participated in "Paebaek", which is a ritual attached to the wedding ceremony. I did the prescribed 2 deep bows to my parents and mother-in-law as well as the one deep bow to the rest of my wife's family.

When in Canada, I've attended Catholic services. I would bow my head when asked. As well, since my belief and Catholicism differ on some points I don't always subscribe to all their pratices. But I would bow my head so as to show respect. As well, I've attended Greek Orthodox weddings and funerals. I would bow when asked by the priest.

In all of these instances, I've never felt that I compromised myself. These are outward things that we are talking about. I think jegs2 gave the most sensible advice.

XPViking

[Durandal]

Such schools are now funded by the government? Suprising... well, actually, it isn't, really, but I wish it was. Here, I agree with you completely. There is no excuse for neglect of civil right by the government, or that of the schools funded by the government. They deserve much worse than obnoxious treatment.

Yes. Private school vouchers were approved by the federal government, so that means that parents are reimbursed for the cost of sending their children to private schools, including religious ones. This is indirect funding of religious indoctrination.

[LadyTevar]

I would fully expect the same respect from a Christian, althugh they may give no more respect to me than you seem to be willing to give.

My choices are my own, and if I chose to play along with someone else's beliefs (broadest term), does that then make me "spineless" or "polite"?

...Regardless of which interpretation LadyTevar meant, the fact remains that she does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.


Thank you for proving me right, you fucking idiot.

I find it amusing that you seem unable to have an intelligent discussion of views as Darth Wong and I have been able to do, without resorting to cursing and insults.

I have always been told that anyone that is forced to resort to curses to make their point is lacking in vocabulary, and sometimes, in rationality. Cursing and emotional outbursts do little to get a point across in any debate, merely causing the other debators to view the curser as unstable and not worth the time or energy.

Good day, sirrah.

[Alyeska]

I've visited Buddhist temples in Thailand. Out of respect for the people, I took off my shoes and sat on the carpet quietly for a few minutes and then left.

When in Korea, I would rise when an elderly person would come in the room. I would also bow if the occassion demanded it. Can't say I've attended any Buddhist services here. Mind you, I've stood up for an elderly person wherever I've been, but that's just a part of my upbringing.

When in Korea, I participated in "Paebaek", which is a ritual attached to the wedding ceremony. I did the prescribed 2 deep bows to my parents and mother-in-law as well as the one deep bow to the rest of my wife's family.

When in Canada, I've attended Catholic services. I would bow my head when asked. As well, since my belief and Catholicism differ on some points I don't always subscribe to all their pratices. But I would bow my head so as to show respect. As well, I've attended Greek Orthodox weddings and funerals. I would bow when asked by the priest.

In all of these instances, I've never felt that I compromised myself. These are outward things that we are talking about. I think jegs2 gave the most sensible advice.

XPViking

You are going to those places by choice. 99% of those going to catholic schools are not doing so by choice and many times are doing so against religous beliefs (or Atheists being sent there). They have no reason to respect something being crammed down their throat. Its about time they spew that shit back out onto the people who are forcing the issue.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I find it amusing that you seem unable to have an intelligent discussion of views as Darth Wong and I have been able to do, without resorting to cursing and insults.

I have always been told that anyone that is forced to resort to curses to make their point is lacking in vocabulary, and sometimes, in rationality. Cursing and emotional outbursts do little to get a point across in any debate, merely causing the other debators to view the curser as unstable and not worth the time or energy.

Oh, how noble.... too bad you've once again ignored EVERY point that I've made until now. Quiet frankly, you have given no grounds for me to consider your points intellegent; consequently I'll continue to treat you in this fashion until you actually address the points that I've made. Let me know when you come up with something new instead of the simple repetition of your unsupported position you've been giving up to this point.

[XPViking]

You are going to those places by choice. 99% of those going to catholic schools are not doing so by choice and many times are doing so against religous beliefs (or Atheists being sent there). They have no reason to respect something being crammed down their throat. Its about time they spew that shit back out onto the people who are forcing the issue.

So? A person could still be an jerk and expect the world to revolve around him when in different countries and in experiencing different cultures. Besides which, the Catholic ones were not voluntary. As well, you can tune out what the priest is saying when you bow your head. It's a battle that the original poster can't win. It just makes him a target. Really, I think Kuroneko said it best:

If he rejects his faith but lacks the courage to rebel against those religious institutions, I will not condemn him. But if he stays in the same institutions while disrespecting their rules, it's like he's trying to rebel and not rebel at the same time. He tries to be a rebel but is unwilling to pay the social price. That's the part I label as hypocrisy.

XPViking

[LadyTevar]

I find it amusing that you seem unable to have an intelligent discussion of views as Darth Wong and I have been able to do, without resorting to cursing and insults.

I have always been told that anyone that is forced to resort to curses to make their point is lacking in vocabulary, and sometimes, in rationality. Cursing and emotional outbursts do little to get a point across in any debate, merely causing the other debators to view the curser as unstable and not worth the time or energy.

Oh, how noble.... too bad you've once again ignored EVERY point that I've made until now. Quiet frankly, you have given no grounds for me to consider your points intellegent; consequently I'll continue to treat you in this fashion until you actually address the points that I've made. Let me know when you come up with something new instead of the simple repetition of your unsupported position you've been giving up to this point.

When I have discovered these 'points' you are claiming you've made, and if they are worth replying to, then, perhaps, I would pay more attention to you.

Until then... to quote Sir Nitram:
"Mommy and Daddy are talking, so be quiet like a good little boy."

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

When I have discovered these 'points' you are claiming you've made, and if they are worth replying to, then, perhaps, I would pay more attention to you.

1. The Gospels and people's belief in them are not worthy of respect.

2. Showing respect for something you despise is nothing more then a lie.

3. As a guiding rule offending someone should only be a concern if you fear their power.

4. If something is evil or wrong you should take a stand against it, even if it means "offending" those who believe in it.

5. A case can be made for not being outward about such a judgement- when there are substancial negative consequences, but when there are no consequences it is inexcusable.

6. The terms "Be Civil" or "Respect the Belief of others" are nothing more then covers for refusing to make or act upon the judgement that something is wrong or evil.

7. LadyTevar does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.


Here are the points you somehow failed to "discover"; now go ahead and address them. Or are you going to weasel your way out of this by saying that the points "aren't worth addressing" as your post suggests?

[Queeb Salaron]

1. The Gospels and people's belief in them are not worthy of respect.

In your ignorant opinion.

2. Showing respect for something you despise is nothing more then a lie.

Yep. It's called common decency. But I didn't expect you to know that.

3. As a guiding rule offending someone should only be a concern if you fear their power.

That is, if you're a militant, belligerant asshole.

4. If something is evil or wrong you should take a stand against it, even if it means "offending" those who believe in it.

Christianity is not "evil" or "wrong."

5. A case can be made for not being outward about such a judgement- when there are substancial negative consequences, but when there are no consequences it is inexcusable.

You have it backwards. You should speak out when there are negative consequences from the action that you are opposing; in other words, speak up if it will help. If it won't help, or won't do anything but offend people, speak when spoken to.

6. The terms "Be Civil" or "Respect the Belief of others" are nothing more then covers for refusing to make or act upon the judgement that something is wrong or evil.

Again, Christianity is not wrong or evil. So be civil and respect the beliefs of others. You have no excuse.

7. LadyTevar does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.

Why should there be a difference? You can POLITELY DISAGREE with both. You fail to see the difference between politely disagreeing with something and vehemently taking a stand against it.

Here are the points you somehow failed to "discover"; now go ahead and address them. Or are you going to weasel your way out of this by saying that the points "aren't worth addressing" as your post suggests?

This post was not directed to me, but I'll respond anyway. These points AREN'T worth addressing. I'm doing you a favor by responding to your blatant ignorance (and maybe fueling it, but we'll decide that later). First point: Don't make blanket statements and pass them off as truth. Unless they're irrefutable moral statements like, "the murder of innocent people is bad," preface anything you have to say with "in my opinion," or "I think that...." This will make carrying on a level-headed conversation so much easier. And you need all the help you can get in that department.

[SirNitram]

When I have discovered these 'points' you are claiming you've made, and if they are worth replying to, then, perhaps, I would pay more attention to you.

1. The Gospels and people's belief in them are not worthy of respect.

And your words are somehow worth more respect? Humouring the harmless costs nothing.

2. Showing respect for something you despise is nothing more then a lie.

Remarkably, not everyone despises everything you do.

3. As a guiding rule offending someone should only be a concern if you fear their power.

Meanwhile, here in civilized, Homo Sapien territory, we do it out of common respect for one another, not out of fear.

4. If something is evil or wrong you should take a stand against it, even if it means "offending" those who believe in it.

But humouring the harmless costs nothing to anyone.

5. A case can be made for not being outward about such a judgement- when there are substancial negative consequences, but when there are no consequences it is inexcusable.

You sound disturbingly like alot of fundies I've heard. Some of them were declaring Holy Wars.

6. The terms "Be Civil" or "Respect the Belief of others" are nothing more then covers for refusing to make or act upon the judgement that something is wrong or evil.

Unfortunately for you, the human race advanced past the 'I'll respect you until I find a bigger rock' stage a few thousand years ago, at least in interpersonal affairs(It remains at this stage in international politics).

7. LadyTevar does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.

Here are the points you somehow failed to "discover"; now go ahead and address them. Or are you going to weasel your way out of this by saying that the points "aren't worth addressing" as your post suggests?

Addressed. Of course, they illustrate mostly that you shouldn't be allowed out in public, due to the possibility of you becoming violent because someone smaller disagrees with you. Thank you, you made me realize why I have a vague need to scrub my skin after reading your posts.

[Durandal]

Could I please clarify something? Showing respect for someone's beliefs is not the same thing as allowing him to force those beliefs down your throat.

[Queeb Salaron]

Could I please clarify something? Showing respect for someone's beliefs is not the same thing as allowing him to force those beliefs down your throat.

In the case of the student at the Catholic school, he has no choice but to endure. The philosophy of Catholic schools is, "if you don't like it, leave. We're not MAKING you pay a large sum of money to pray in class, you're doing it of your own free will." And if it's the parents that are making him go, then that's something he's going to have to discuss with them. It has nothing to do with the school. The school is just there, and it has its rules. Don't go if you don't like it. Simple as pie.

The school cannot be blamed here. If anything, it is the parents' fault, or the student for not speaking up against it. The school has no liability. They aren't FORCING anything down anyone's throat. The students know the rules. Not obeying them deserves punishment. There are schools that don't have those kinds of rules. He could go there, in theory. Not the school's fault.

[Darth Wong]

2. Showing respect for something you despise is nothing more then a lie.

Yep. It's called common decency. But I didn't expect you to know that.

So if you met a white supremacist, you would have the "common decency" not to criticize his beliefs?

4. If something is evil or wrong you should take a stand against it, even if it means "offending" those who believe in it.

Christianity is not "evil" or "wrong."

The Bible is. Unless, of course, you don't see anything wrong with a story in which the "good guys" commit mass-murder, slaughtering entire ethnicities such as the midianites down to the last child and being praised for their righteousness in doing so. Not to mention the hero of the story (God) himself committing even more mass-murders; use of WMD on Sodom and Gomorrah, infanticide in Egypt, slaughtering the entire population of the Earth except for one family of followers in the "Great" flood, etc.

You have it backwards. You should speak out when there are negative consequences from the action that you are opposing; in other words, speak up if it will help. If it won't help, or won't do anything but offend people, speak when spoken to.

There are numerous negative consequences from childhood indoctrination in a belief system that teaches black/white instead of gray, particularly when black/white are differentiated by loyalty rather than morality.

Again, Christianity is not wrong or evil. So be civil and respect the beliefs of others. You have no excuse.

Bullshit. Since the Bible contains considerable evil AND PRAISES THE PERPETRATORS OF THAT EVIL, even in the New Testament, it is perfectly reasonable to say negative things about Christianity. An individual Christian might not subscribe to all of those things, but a belief system which uses an unrepentantly hateful and violent document like the Bible as its self-professed foundation of morality is hardly as innocent as you would make it out to be.

7. LadyTevar does not see a difference, in terms of respect to be alloted, between beliefs that are derived from reality and those that are not.

Why should there be a difference? You can POLITELY DISAGREE with both. You fail to see the difference between politely disagreeing with something and vehemently taking a stand against it.

Are you on drugs? A conclusion drawn from an observation of objective reality cannot be remotely compared to ideas culled from religious beliefs.

First point: Don't make blanket statements and pass them off as truth. Unless they're irrefutable moral statements like, "the murder of innocent people is bad," preface anything you have to say with "in my opinion," or "I think that...." This will make carrying on a level-headed conversation so much easier. And you need all the help you can get in that department.

Take your self-righteous attitude and shove it up your ass. If you accept a blanket statement like "the murder of innocent people is bad", then you just accepted that the Bible is bad, and that by extension, anyone who unquestionably supports everything in it is also bad. An individual Christian may reveal a more complex attitude upon further questioning, but an organized religion which proudly professes the moral leadership of a document no less evil than "Mein Kampf" should not be cut slack by default.

[Darth Wong]

In the case of the student at the Catholic school, he has no choice but to endure. The philosophy of Catholic schools is, "if you don't like it, leave. We're not MAKING you pay a large sum of money to pray in class, you're doing it of your own free will." And if it's the parents that are making him go, then that's something he's going to have to discuss with them. It has nothing to do with the school. The school is just there, and it has its rules. Don't go if you don't like it. Simple as pie.

Not if the Catholic school is drawing government funds, which is the case in many locales.

The school cannot be blamed here. If anything, it is the parents' fault, or the student for not speaking up against it. The school has no liability. They aren't FORCING anything down anyone's throat. The students know the rules. Not obeying them deserves punishment. There are schools that don't have those kinds of rules. He could go there, in theory. Not the school's fault.

Again, you are assuming that not a dime of the school's budget comes from the government. This may or may not be true in this case.

[Queeb Salaron]

Not if the Catholic school is drawing government funds, which is the case in many locales.

I'm not certain about this, but I'm pretty sure that no religious school in the country CAN draw government / state money. They have to be independently financed, which is why there's often a tuition attached to enrollment. I know this is true of Massachusetts, anyway.

Again, you are assuming that not a dime of the school's budget comes from the government. This may or may not be true in this case.

True. If the school is drawing on government money, it has no place making kids do ANYthing religious. But I thought we had all assumed that it didn't draw on government money. Like I said before, if this were a public school, things would be different. It would be wrong for a public school to be religious in nature, because in that case kids don't HAVE an alternative. It's indoctrination through lack of alternitives. And that's just plain wrong. But I thought we had assumed otherwise. Sorry if I was wrong.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not certain about this, but I'm pretty sure that no religious school in the country CAN draw government / state money. They have to be independently financed, which is why there's often a tuition attached to enrollment. I know this is true of Massachusetts, anyway.

Since the original post was from New Zealand, American laws do not apply. I don't know whether Catholic schools can draw any government money in New Zealand. Mind you, simply being tax-exempt is a form of government subsidy, but people sort of take religious tax-exemption for granted so it's normally treated that way.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And your words are somehow worth more respect? Humouring the harmless costs nothing.

My words, when they are logically consistent and based upon evidence are certainly worth much more respect then the irrational, unfounded mysticism contained within the Bible. As for how harmless it is, one only needs to look at the Mid-East and the Crusades to see the consequences of these beliefs, when they are taken seriously. The only reason these beliefs can be considered "harmless" in modern times is because few people take them seriously or live by a literal interpretation of their holy book, however this does not change the fact that these beliefs are, at their root, irrational and, to a degree, evil.

Remarkably, not everyone despises everything you do.

This has what to do with my point? Even if everyone despised everything I did, it would not change the fact that they would be lying if they claimed to respect my beliefs when they really despised me.

Meanwhile, here in civilized, Homo Sapien territory, we do it out of common respect for one another, not out of fear.

You offend people out of common respect for them? I find that very amusing.

In all seriousness though, in the context of the point I mean "offending" in the sense that they feel offended when you state what you think on a given issue, not "offending" in the sense that you spit on them because you disagree with them.

But humouring the harmless costs nothing to anyone.

Once again, I point out that the Gosepls, Christianity, and religion in general are not harmless. Furthermore, by acting contrarty to your convictions you are labeling yourself as a hypocrit or a liar; as a consequence people will have trouble taking what you say and do seriously. Added to this is the fact that there is the very real cost of the personal humiliation you suffer by "knuckling under" and humoring something you think is complete bullshit.

You sound disturbingly like alot of fundies I've heard. Some of them were declaring Holy Wars.

Thats simply because you lack, or are not employing, the critical thinking skills necessary to see the difference between the nature of the judgement involved. Fundies believe they are on a mission from God and believe that you are the epitome of evil, damned to an eternity in hell, if you do not accept (or worse yet oppose or refute) their religion. My judgements are based on evidence and rationality; furthermore my judgements do not impose anything on those who disagree with me (other then the requirement that they respect my inalienable Rights).

Unfortunately for you, the human race advanced past the 'I'll respect you until I find a bigger rock' stage a few thousand years ago, at least in interpersonal affairs(It remains at this stage in international politics).

Definatly a misunderstanding . I meant that you should make and act upon your judgement as long as it does not violate the Rights of other Individuals (as long as they are not violating yours). In the context of this conversation it means that your refusing to say what you really think on a given issue or subject (or to even think of such a judgement in the first place) because you want to "Be Civil" or "Respect the beliefs of others".

Addressed. Of course, they illustrate mostly that you shouldn't be allowed out in public, due to the possibility of you becoming violent because someone smaller disagrees with you. Thank you, you made me realize why I have a vague need to scrub my skin after reading your posts.

My previous counterpoints have dealt with your reasoning on point 7. It's a shame you think I'm nothing but a mindless animal, but I can see how the format of my last post might lead you to that conclusion. The confusion proabably resulted my not defining exactly what I meant with several of the terms I used, but in my defense I did think that what I meant by those terms was firmly established by my previous posts.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Ah Mike you beat me to the punch!