I simply agreed with the author of the poem simply for her right to
prayer regardless of religion, color, creed, location (church or state).
These are part of any US citizens “inalienable rights”. Their are more
religions practiced by US citizens than I care to type about currently…
and I believe that they all have the right to prayer regardless of one’s
geographic location. I also believe when ‘state’ decides for us when &
where ‘church’ starts and stops is a load of bologna!

She wasn’t singling out Christianity as a way to ignore other culture’s
religious rights, she is simply a Christian speaking up for her own
religious rights — you know that whole freedom of speech thing that you as a
self proclaimed ‘constitutionalist’ should more than understand! I mean
come on, if she had been a Muslim, she would have a clever poem protesting
her right to bow down before Allah and read the Curran at her locker between
classes… All I’m saying is we all have the right to our religious beliefs
and practices wherever we are — regardless of what the “new” government
thinks, and regardless of what you think… don’t turn this into something
that it’s not.

The first point you called me out on is —

“When referring to “God” on our currency, it is not singling out any specific deity by definition. All religions referenced leader Christ, Buddha, and so forth are all considered their “God””

My answer on this point was this -

“what peo­ple don’t real­ize is that “God” on your money has been found legally to be an abstrac­tion and doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily refer to a Chris­t­ian Diety. ”

Now after that we differ a bit — if you want to argue the rights we have actually lost, some thanks the US PATRIOT act I’m all for it and rally behind it. Yes I’m offended that she thinks christian deserve a “special” right — after the founding fathers explicitly stated there would be a separation of church and state. Politically I’m a constitutionalist, but I also consider myself a christian — though to be honest as time goes by I’m becoming more agnostic.

You think I am a simpleton (granted I have a policy of not reediting what I have written, but the misspellings of the word “the” that came up so often makes me shrink back a little myself), yet in you own statement you referred to Buddha as a consideration of God to Buddhists. First of all buddhism is closer to philisophy then religion, and he considered himself just a teacher and would be greatly offended by anyone considering him a god (I get this from my knowledge since I obviously don’t have a first hand account.)

I don’t see her calling out for religious equality — where are her pleas for prayer rugs in school so Muslims can pray to mecca?

Where is her railing against school uniforms that are becoming more and more common and are made without consideration of religious views. That point came up because of the town I used to live in was considering implementing school uniforms and someone pointed out what about the Amish. While there was none in the town I used to live in, there are where I live now, so this hit home. It’s not that far to the town where uniforms are being considered, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility they may one day pick up some Amish students. What about their rights?

The right to openly pray? Really? That is your hot button topic? I don’t know of any schools that would disallow her to where a cross or rosary if others can wear necklaces. If you are going to fight the stance for prayer and schools and equality for religious practices in state run institutions — then fight for the prayer mats also.

Until you are ready to do that, you can’t say you are fighting for equality on an equal playing field with the other religions — which is what this whole thing boils down to. You have to accept all of it or none of it. Separation of church and state is not really about disallowing religion in state run buildings, but it’s about not showing favoritism for one religion over the other. Once the rights and practices of all religions are respected and can accommodated in state run institutions I’ll be right behind you to allow this girl to pray. Until that state of acceptance and accommodations can be achieved, she just wants special privileges that the other students are already denied. She is complaining about her “right” to pray — but the things she is complaining about have nothing to do with that on an equal playing field — how they dress does not equal their religious practices.

But you must have known and thought all about that, after all I’m the simpleton in this conversation.

The first point you called me out on is —

“When referring to “God” on our currency, it is not singling out any specific deity by definition. All religions referenced leader Christ, Buddha, and so forth are all considered their “God””

My answer on this point was this -

“what peo­ple don’t real­ize is that “God” on your money has been found legally to be an abstrac­tion and doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily refer to a Chris­t­ian Diety. ”

Now after that we differ a bit — if you want to argue the rights we have actually lost, some thanks the US PATRIOT act I’m all for it and rally behind it. Yes I’m offended that she thinks christian deserve a “special” right — after the founding fathers explicitly stated there would be a separation of church and state. Politically I’m a constitutionalist, but I also consider myself a christian — though to be honest as time goes by I’m becoming more agnostic.

You think I am a simpleton (granted I have a policy of not reediting what I have written, but the misspellings of the word “the” that came up so often makes me shrink back a little myself), yet in you own statement you referred to Buddha as a consideration of God to Buddhists. First of all buddhism is closer to philisophy then religion, and he considered himself just a teacher and would be greatly offended by anyone considering him a god (I get this from my knowledge since I obviously don’t have a first hand account.)

I don’t see her calling out for religious equality — where are her pleas for prayer rugs in school so Muslims can pray to mecca?

Where is her railing against school uniforms that are becoming more and more common and are made without consideration of religious views. That point came up because of the town I used to live in was considering implementing school uniforms and someone pointed out what about the Amish. While there was none in the town I used to live in, there are where I live now, so this hit home. It’s not that far to the town where uniforms are being considered, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility they may one day pick up some Amish students. What about their rights?

The right to openly pray? Really? That is your hot button topic? I don’t know of any schools that would disallow her to where a cross or rosary if others can wear necklaces. If you are going to fight the stance for prayer and schools and equality for religious practices in state run institutions — then fight for the prayer mats also.

Until you are ready to do that, you can’t say you are fighting for equality on an equal playing field with the other religions — which is what this whole thing boils down to. You have to accept all of it or none of it. Separation of church and state is not really about disallowing religion in state run buildings, but it’s about not showing favoritism for one religion over the other. Once the rights and practices of all religions are respected and can accommodated in state run institutions I’ll be right behind you to allow this girl to pray. Until that state of acceptance and accommodations can be achieved, she just wants special privileges that the other students are already denied. She is complaining about her “right” to pray — but the things she is complaining about have nothing to do with that on an equal playing field — how they dress does not equal their religious practices.

But you must have known and thought all about that, after all I’m the simpleton in this conversation.

You are a small minded, short sighted idiot. I mean that in the nicest way possible. If prayer offends you, don’t listen, and further more if it offends you…maybe the rest of the constitution that outlines our other freedoms offends you as well. If we begin to hack away at them (our freedoms in which the country was based on) one at a time, where does it stop? They will eventually attack and eliminate a freedom that does affect or offend you.
Also, I’ve read through all of your comments on this rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance, and I think that you’ve missed many points that this young person is putting out there. When referring to “God” on our currency, it is not singling out any specific deity by definition. All religions referenced leader Christ, Buddha, and so forth are all considered their “God”. And her reference to the birth control was simply stating that the irony was in fact that schools will provide a means for minors to have safe sex (and I’m OK with that, even though I don’t condone children having sex — I’d rather they be safe in doing what they will do) but will not allow those same minors their religious freedoms.
You need to learn to interpret things a little better or maybe read between the lines so that you can understand their true meanings. It scares the hell out of me to think that some simpleton such as yourself might possibly be a registered voter.

Dec 12, 2008

creeva said…
thank you very much

Dec 11, 2008

capri said…
Yes, amen! As a Christian, I find these chain letters extremely offensive. Great post, thanks!

Dec 12, 2008

creeva said…
thank you very much

Dec 11, 2008

capri said…
Yes, amen! As a Christian, I find these chain letters extremely offensive. Great post, thanks!