IL, when left unchecked, most religious people are fine with the seeping of their religion into facets of society. Some of it is harmless, like Christmas (I love Christmas), but some of it is actually quite dangerous to those who value a like without persecution. If my daughter has to sit in a science class and learn about mythology, I will be pissed and rightfully so. I have explained my understanding of God to my daughter and I've told her that if she ever wants to go to church, she is welcome to, but I don't want her to ever feel pressured. I've explained to her that some sunday schools have in them lessons about spreading the word, which can mean that kintegardners are out there asking questions like, "Do you know Jesus?" or "Have you been saved?", when they can't even grasp the meanings of such questions. When the answer isn't favorable, even the best of friends can turn on you. If my daughter is denied membership to the girlscouts, like the BSA does not admit atheists. "Under god" was added to the flag salute much, much later, and it ruined the meter of the damned thing. There really is no reason to assume that we are one nation under god, when many of us don't even believe in the exestence of god.

I think a lot of people would be pissed if private religious schools were legally required to teach evolution as an alternate to ID. Rven though it would ultimately be benificial to the students, it's not the place of the government to control or impose on faith. Likewise, people's right not to believe is imposed on when a religious theory is taught in science classrooms.

Will, let me know how successful you are in trying to keep kindergartners from discussing sensitive and/or embarrassing topics. I'd like to use my Way Back machine to go back to use your lessons to keep my kindergarten self from lecturing my teacher on the fact that boy have a penis and girls have a "bahgina". It would have saved me from further humiliation in the 4th grade when it was mentioned in front of a large group of my peers.

My point is that kids are going to talk about whatever they hear from adults. I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be any playground revivals/babtisms, but if it seems like a fun game or important to adults, it's going to get discussed.

As far as the Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, I was an agnostic Boy Scout and got my Eagle. Early on I had to make the decision which was more important, being a Boy Scout and paying lip service to the religious aspect or standing up for something I didn't even feel that passionately about anyway and losing out on the camping trips, rock climbing, etc. If being an atheist is more important to your daughter, then she needs to find an outlet other than the GSA. If not, tell her to not discuss it. The BSA/GSA have made it pretty clear that they're not willing to accept those that don't toe the line and the courts have backed them up. A decision on which is more important need to be made.

After withstanding several years of attempted conversions by friends and neighbors both growing up and in the couple years after college, I made the decision to tell those who insist on discussing religion that they're rude. Which they are. I just chose not to make my beliefs anyone else's business.

To speak to Hal's OP, why do I care what a bunch of talking heads think anyway, especially when those folks aren't in any position of power. If W was a part of the discussion, that would be something different, but this almost seems like they pulled 3 idiots off the tour of the CNN center and got them talking.

I agree with ngdawg here. I know many more athiests that are educated in religion than I do thiests educated in religions or beliefs other than their own. I think this is partly because of the way religions view those with other beliefs, most of the time it's not with a positive light and so alot of thiests don't know much about other religions. This is a generalization, I realize that but there's a point.

Religion has no place in school, there are multiple parts of the constitution that say this along with many Supreme Court rulings. This is fact, not opinion.

There are some very compelling articles and books out there right now on this very issue. I have a feeling that we've approached these ideas in other threads, but check these out...

If there's one person who is getting panties in a bunch these days, it's Richard Dawkins. This Wired article is worth checking out: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html

My favourite recent article comes from the Guardian. This one's about how religion will just be too silly to outlast the end of the century: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...980979,00.html

Finally, South Park did a great two parter about this whole thing, taking a very reasonable position that any extremist view leads to trouble: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002719.php

So if CNN is pissing you off, atheists, don't worry... there's a lot more intelligent dialog out there.

Wow, this story really made my jaw drop. I find it hard to believe that this sort of discrimination can be directed at atheists. I'm pretty openly atheist, but I've never met with any discrimination (that I'm aware of). Perhaps I just live in a tolerant small town?

This story said that 1 to 3% of Americans are atheist, but <b><a href="http://jcnot4me.com/items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm">this</a></b> article says 14%, making it the third largest religion in the U.S. That's a pretty large difference. Of course, some non-religious people are not comfortable using the term "atheist", so that might explain the large difference. I'll admit, I didn't like the term much for awhile because it seemed that so many atheists are raving assholes. But then I just learned that raving assholes come in all shapes and colors.

Funny story: My friend, who is also an atheist, mentioned his beliefs to his neighbor. They looked a bit nervous and actually said "That's ok, I guess. I'm sure not ALL atheist worship the devil".

Hahahah!!! :lol:

Bizarre. Did your friend point out that devil worshippers, by definition, cannot be atheists?

It would seem that way wouldn't it. But that's actually not totally true.

An athiest can be a devil worshipper.

Devil worship is not the believe in the opposite 'diety', if you want to use that word, of God.

Devil worshippers actually believe that there is no God, No Devil, No Angels, they are in fact, athiests, they believe in no supernatural beings.

They do however believe in the "Idea" of the devil, what he would stand for were he existant.

They in essence merely believe in a true 'Free Will' way of living, without the constrictions placed upon us by a god, gods, or any type of religion.

You ruined the humor! It was funny that they equated atheism with satan worshiping, becuase both are independantly considerd by many Christians to be the opposite of their religion.

Yes, I can. Simply because you don't believe it happens, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I asked this question before, but doesn't removing God or the mention of religion from the public sector promote the atheist agenda?

Which, of course, is nothing like someone telling you that you believe in a fairy tale or God doesn't exist. I've never denied the fact that theists don't try to convert people. I've just found it funny how people seemingly believe that atheists don't do the same.

That's nothing. Try praying in school without someone stating that you're "Offending" them.

And why, per chance, does it have to be mainstream? You wanted to know of an instance in which atheists debate religious topics in the absence of religious people.

...You're kidding, right? I'm sorry, but what exactly do you expect to see when you watch CNN? They're not exactly liberal (I'm not sure they ever have been, either). News stations can be as biased as they want, as they're not controlled by the government but by the people who sponsor them. Much like the atheists on their own station, CNN is allowed to run their own agenda.

Yes yes... I know... Seperation of Church and State... Yada yada yada...

Anyway, what I (And most other people have a problem with) is when you have a town which is predominantly comprised of one religion, an atheist moves in and then wants to change the way things are run because they're "Offended".

Yeah, if I were in that town in Mississippi, I'd have run the atheists out of town, too. You can have your child not participate in Bible study, but to claim that no one should participate in Bible study because you're offended is, IMO, idiotic. When I was in elementary school and my mom didn't agree with a part of the curriculum, do you know what she did? She wrote a note stating that she wanted me to go elsewhere for the duration of that time. I've never understand how/why people complain about things they don't have to participate in.

If the institution accepts federal funds, it shouldn't be done regardless of the majority opinion. They can do their own version freely, but not with public funds. It strikes me they're trying to sweep the larger problem under the rug and target an individual.

And as for "predominantly", who's left out? Does nobody else in that town have a problem with the one belief system? Given their upbringing and the non-acceptance at school, etc., do you think they'd feel safe enough to voice their opinion? The town should give up government funding and start a commune. That'd be the legal way to maintain their one-way policy. They wouldn't be the first.

This sentence contradicts itself. Worshipping something is predicated on a belief in its existence.

The person in the story equating atheism with devil worship was a Christian, so it is safe to assume that by "devil worship" she meant the Christian conception of the devil as a literal being. The irony in her statement comes from the idea that she seems to believe that there are people who don't believe in the Christian devil, yet worship him anyway.

The system of belief you describe is an atheistic belief system that only becomes devil worship if you accept the existence of the devil, at which point it becomes a theistic, or at least a deistic system.

My mother-in-law is a devout Christian. During the after-Thanksgiving chitchat, which had turned somehow to God, she asked me, "Do you believe?" to which I said an emphatic 'No".
Fast forward to Christmas dinner at her house. It is tradition that everyone stands around the table, holding hands as she says Grace. This year's grace included the following 'dig': "And please allow us to remember why we all are here tonight, even if some have chosen to forget"....
I don't tell people who are of faith that they're mistaken (outside of a debate platform) and I don't try to sway others to my line of thinking in this regard. But it seems the minute you reveal that your beliefs are not 'traditional', all bets are off as far as 'live and let live' goes. That was evidenced in that family's desire to not have their kid part of that 'bible study'(which I have to ask, who allowed that in a public school in the first place? They were right to voice opposition there)
Yes, IL, I do hold to that assumption, anecdotal as it may be; theists don't want to entertain the notion they might be worshipping something that never existed-atheists more often than not were taught believing in a deity until they questioned these teachings.

The Constitution is the only atheist agenda at work here, and it's persecution that 'atheists' (actually many Christians supported the removal of God from government, too) are trying to fix.
There's a difference between questioning and damning. I doubt any atheist would tell a Christian that he or she was going to hell.
So kids get beaten up for praying in school? I dare you to try and find an article to link to support that. Homosexuals are beaten up often because of their sexual orientation.

Apples and handguns.
In order to equate them, duh. You acted as if it were commonplace in a venue of similar viewership to the linked show above. It's not 50/50 here, it's more like 99/1, and it's not in your favor. Basically, you proved that the point you're trying to make isn't sound by showing how little you have to support it.
Just because something is a way doesn't mean that's the best way. Unbiased news is the friend of the informed man. Biased news is the friend of the mindless man. Feel free to quote me on that. CNN can go on and show children being raped, but that doesn't make it right.
One of the most important princeples of a non theocracy. Wait, do you want the US to be a theocracy?
That's a case of "you are not your own country, so shape up and follow the rules and don't be dicks".
That not only makes you a bigot, but a dick.
Prayer has no place in public schools, and there are laws to back me up on that. If you want to break the law, go right ahead, but you won't win any arguments that way. You might actually scare people from your camp. Also, I REALLY WISH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD READ THEIR OWN TEXTS:
Matthew 6:5-6

It's an interesting aspect of language in that it doesn't work like math when it comes to opposites. Because of the language we use to express it, an idea or a word can have more than one opposite without those opposites being equivalent to each other.

In this case, however, devil worship isn't really the opposite of Christian belief. Within the framework of Christian belief, worshiping the devil would mean the Christian conception of the devil as a fallen angel who presides over hell, which means accusing someone of devil worship assumes an acceptance of the Christian model of existence.

The woman seems to believe that there are people who accept the Christian model of the universe, yet don't belief in a supreme being.

I find that amusing.

ng, I had something similar happen these past holidays. There was a solemn push for "don't forget what this holiday is about." I held back mentioning pre-Christian winter solstice & dates picked out of a hat. Then came "remember, every morning we're closer to the end times than the day before." I did my Buckwheat impersonation trying not to smile, then snickered at the obvious. Tough recovery in that setting. From there I tried to stick with polite conversation.

Hate that.

Wouldn't you have to believe in hell first to tell someone they're going their?

This isn't even close to the point I was making. To say that theists are the only ones who try to conform others to their way of thinking is simply ridiculous.

Not quite. Now you're saying that it's all right to run your own agenda for so long as it's not viewed by the majority. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. CNN, just like that atheist TV show, is privately owned and run. They're under no obligation to show anything which doesn't fit their agenda.

You can sit here and try to nitpick at that argument as much as you want, but that's the bottom line. Before you finger point at CNN, you'd better take a good, hard look at your own camp.

You can find unbiased news in the United States? Sorry, but all TV stations have their own agendas to run. The atheists run theirs without much backlash, so why can't CNN?

Isn't it anyway?

Ya' know... One of the questions that they usually ask the presidency runners is "How does your faith affects your political position (Or something of the sort)?" So much for separation of Church and State.

Well, for one, I don't believe I ever said that. People can have different belief systems; I simply have a problem when one tries to impose their will on the other. I'd be willing to bet that the Mississippi school would have gladly let the kid be exempt from Bible study if his parents asked for him too. I've got a problem with the

Naw, it wouldn't. I wouldn't run them out for being atheists (That'd be dumb), but because they want to prevent everyone else from participating in Bible study rather than simply asking their child to be removed from Bible study.

Yes yes... I've heard this argument before.

The question still remains, what exactly is the opposition if it wouldn'e be required of anyone to participate (Sorta' like not saying the PoA)? Yeah. I know. I won't get a straight answer.

I've actually got a brilliant idea. Instead of prayer, let's just call it "Talk to whomever you believe in, if you believe in anything" time. It's all inclusive and couldn't possibly offend anyone :thumbsup:

Oh, and for the record, I fully well know what those verses mean (Yes, I have read the Bible, ya' know). They don't say not to engage in public prayer, but not to engage in public prayer as means showing you're superiority to anyone else. Would you care to distort anymore Bible verses?

I would also like to add that there is no atheist agenda. What people mean when they say this is that they think that the constitution is wrong. People suing to have religion removed aren't debating god's existence. They are citing the constitution.

People can pray in school. Where in the bible does it say that prayers that aren't spoken aloud don't count? There is a verse in the book of Matthew about how you shouldn't pray for others to see. Everyone praying out loud in unison does not make it more of a prayer. The only benefit of it is it serves to indoctrinate the masses.

Do people actually think that Jesus would be behind invoking his father's name for patriotic and nationalistic reasons? Please tell me where in the bible Jesus came to America? I tend to think he would react more like when he threw the money-changers out of the temple.

Willravel's subtle humor swings and misses.
But it's not that simple. Atheists convert with books or protests. Christians, some anyway, convert with knives. Have you ever heard of any religious person being physically hurt by atheists because of their faith? Absolutely not. Conversion with a book is better than conversion with a gun.
No, I'm saying you were incorrect when you said:
You had to find some miniscule, out in the boonies example, which really only made your case worse. If you hadn't responded then at least you didn't try and fail. Your fictional 'al atheists baching christianity' show was a farce.
Which camp is that? I watch Democracy Now! and read a few newspapers, not one of the BS news networks. Do you disagree with my clever little quote?
Hahaha. Here we are again. So where is this atheist agenda on TV? Noewhere. That's what I thought.
No, and if it were I'd fight to get it back to the way it's supposed to be.
YI think we can all agree that Presidents are not the place to look for a good example of anything that has to do with government except corruption or ignorance. Bush invaded Iraq with the supposed support of God.
When anything religious goes into public schools, it's an imposition. When religion leaves public schools, it's a return to equilibrium. Remember, atheism isn't a religion. It's a lack there of, and as such isn't subject to the same rules in public schools.
If the bible study is priave, that's great. I promote bible studies among Christians, just like I support Qu'ran studies for Muslims and Torah studies for Jews. Your religion is important to you and you experiencing the peace and understanding of that religion can't hurt me. The problem is that bible studies have no place in public schools.
Because it's not as cut and dry as you're making it. If a child wants to pray silently before a meal or before a test, no one cares, even us godless athiests. t's when the teacher leads the class in prayer right after doing the flag salute that things get really stupid. Would you want your kid reading from the Qu'ran and being taught that it's the correct religion at a public school? No? Why not? There's your answer.
I don't know of any school teacher that leads prayers to every diety. It's usually just one diety, and it's usually Christian (simply because Christianity is the most prevelant religion).
Why do you think people have to pray in school? They are lording their god over everyone. I did it when I was in school, and a lot of my Christian buddies did too. It's perfectly clear, and your suggestion that I'm distorting the bible is ludacris. The words are plain and simple.

...Sarcasm also isn't your forte...

What kind of comparison is this? Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years; Atheism in it's present form has been around for around 150 years. During Christianity's first 150 years, it didn't go out subjugating other cultures.

Couple of things here.

Nowhere did I say all atheists make it their goal to attack and disprove other religions. I did say, however, that this is the general attitude of most atheists. Anywho, with that being said, you stated that you were unfamiliar with such shows. I showed you one (Actually, it has about twenty or so broadcasts for you to listen to) and you instantly replied with "That doesn't count because it's not mainstream!" So, twenty or so non-mainstream shows in which you have a panel of atheists bash other religions is different than one show on a mainstream network bashing atheists how...? I'm still not seeing the difference, unless you're stating that it's A-OK to do the bashing as long as you're not on public TV.

Which camp is that? I watch Democracy Now! and read a few newspapers, not one of the BS news networks. Do you disagree with my clever little quote?

...Didn't we just go over this?

Great! You totally avoided the point I was making. If religion doesn't (And didn't) play such an important part in American society, do you think such a question would be continually posed in presidential debates? ...No? I didn't think so.

It's an imposition only if it's forced on you. If you're not required to participate in any religious based activity, then there's nothing being imposed on you. All you're effectively doing is preventing those people who want to take part in those activities from doing so (Which, according to your definition, would be imposition).

I promote Bible studies for anyone who wants them. I support Koran studies for anyone who wants them. I also support Torah studies for anyone who wants them. For the people who don't want them, I say move on with your life and stop acting as if you're being imposed upon because of what others do.

If you're not being forced into participation against your will, then you really have no room to complain.

No. I wouldn't. But, you know, I would prevent others from doing it. I'd simply do as my mom did me when I was little-- Request that I be removed from the classroom while such activities are going on. It's rocket science, I know.

You see, instead of having your child removed from the classroom, you'd rather inconvenience everyone else by restricting them from participating in such activities.

...And my subtle humor goes unnoticed...

First and foremost, you're not making the difference between group prayer and public prayer as described in the Bible. Group prayer occurs with more than one person; Public prayer is when you pray by yourself in public for the sole purpose of showing off. Hey, if you read the Bible you'd know that Jesus engaged in public prayer, too!

CNN will have the debate once more, with an athiest included in the panel. Thursday at 8pm.

Oh, and a blog post from the jewish girl..

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archi...theists_a.html

I honestly have never heard anyone who actually is a literal "Devil Worshipper".

There are many books on this subject, and they are amazingly interesting if you have an open mind, and are interested in religions.

Yes, a literal "Devil worshipper" is a thiest. But the mass majority of people who call themselves devil worshippers, do not believe that a devil, a god, or any supernatural creator/puppet master actually exist. Which by definition makes them athiest.

Perhaps in this case, it's safe to assume the christian meant the literal sense of the phrase.

but I was merely responding to Which isn't true.











You can, but you'd be wrong. Removing god from public promotes athiest agenda?

That's like saying removing nudists, from daytona beach, is promoting the "Bikini club". No, it's not, it's simply following the rules/laws.

I never said athiests don't do it, I said religious people do it much much MUCH more. You can't really argue that since 90% of the population is religious in some facet, you going to tell me that the 10% of athiests are out doing the religious majority?

Not going to bother with this one, simply because it's absolutely incredulous to even equate the two.

I wanted an equally credible isntance of it. Not some obscure program that rarely gets listened to/watched, and is KNOWN for bias. That program which I have listened to, is not claiming unbias.


Again, I didn't say it was unbias, I said it was portrayed as unbias, just as a news organization should be. Yes, they can be biased if they please, but that's not how they are expected to operate. This is obvious.

The problem I have with this, is that you think because you are in the majority, you get preferential treatment over the minority. You can try to misinterpret the constitution, and pretend it doesn't adhere to you, because you are the majority, but that is what I'd call idiocy.

Not to mention you saying you would run athiests out of town is a shining example of the intolerance you claim the ahiests have a monopoly on.

Christianity in it's current form is maybe 60 years old. I doubt you can compare Christianity 1500 years ago to Christianity today. No religion is consistant over that span of time.
No where did I say that either. How about we compare audiences? Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands watch network news. How many listen to these shows? Can't you find something on MSNBC or something where all atheists come together to bash Christianity? Of course not. Why not? Because you're grasping at straws.
This isn't about american society as much as it is about government. Prayer in public schools and removing 'in god we trust' are two main examples cited by some atheists. The office of the president may be heald by a religious man, but that man has to figure out how to keep his faith seperate from his decision making process. Unless we're a theocracy. Bush is a prime example of what not to do. He uses his faith to gain more support and then he claims he makes decisions based on his faith. The man should have 'theocracy' tattood on his forehead. And under that it should say 'closed until further notice'.
Wrong. It is imposed when it is supported by the schools. There is a reason I don't want my daughter going to a private, religious school. They don't have private atheist schools, anyway, but that's beside the point. Public schools = government, and a democratic government cannot be religious. Democracy is supposed to be an atheist system, as it is made clear by anyone who knows anything about basic government. Freedom of religion does mean, in part, freedom from religion. School is somewhere you're forced to go before the age of 18, therefore if you are forced to go to a school that clearly is run like a Christian institution, you're being imposed upon. It's really that simple.
Do what you want outside of government organizations.
It's not about forced participation. It's about being surrounded by theism in schools. It's wrong, and it will stop because it's wrong.
Screw that. That's not how it works. That's what should happen in private, Christian schools. In public schools, there will be no prayer.
The inconvenience is when people are too simple to learn about their own government. American Idol is on, and W. Bush is talking about jesus, so let's make the atheist kid sit in the corner while we ironically ask god to bless our social studies.
No, I'm saying when people pray outloud in school, they are doing so to get attention. That's an affront to god according to your own book. It's a farce, it's an imposition, and it's not welcome. Grow up and wait until 3:00 to talk to god again like a normal person.

Jesus didn't go to public schools in the US to pray, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It's fair to alienate the minority now? You think it'd be super dee duper if they made black kids leave the room when they discuss hot button topics that relate to whites?

I'm getting tired of this already.

You've already shown you understand the seperation clause of the constitution, now why on earth, are you still argueing this? You talk about forcing people to leave simply because they are not like you, which is the grandfather of hypocrisy seeing as how people who actually understand this country, and it's forefathers, yet still think they are special enough to bend those basic rights, the right to believe whatever you want, and not be persecuted for it, are the ones who would be pushed out of this place.

the problem isn't students in school praying, if some students want to pray, let them, the issue is when an authority figure directs the students to pray, or sets aside class time to pray. if a student wants to pray while the teacher is passing out the test, fine, but if the teacher says, before we take the test, lets pray, that is the problem.

No, but arguing that atheists haven't gone out and fought any wars when it's only approximately 150 years old unlike Christianity (Which is 2,000 years old), is just plain faulty. How many wars did Christianity fight in it's first 150 years? I'd be willing to guess that number would be zero.

Now you're arguing number of people reached? Really, this is just getting ridiculous. Whether or not you reach one person or a million people, the point is that just as CNN had a panel of non-atheists to discuss atheism, so too do atheists have panels of non-theists arguing religious topics. If you think that one is more acceptable than the other because it reaches less viewers, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Okay... That's some faulty logic. Unless you're being required to participate in religious events are even being made to acknowledge the teachings of another religion, then nothing is being imposed on you. That's like me saying that atheistic beliefs are being imposed on me by not allowing me to display my religious beliefs in school.

This isn't true. Democracies, in the purest of senses, are systems by which the majority rule (Though, in the US, the majority can't always overrule the minority).

No, you're really not being imposed upon. You're never forced to participate in prayer. Ever. Never have been, never will be.

...What are you talking about? You can use school facilities for religious purposes. I suppose you've also got a problem with that, seeing as how it's government property, right?

All you can say is "It's wrong!". Would you care to explain why it's wrong without using the "Because the law says so!" crutch. Does is somehow harm you? Does it cause irreperable damage somewhere in your life? Does it convert you to a particular religion?

Oh... I see... Screw that because it doesn't conform to your personal belief system, right?

If you sit in the corner, you still might be influenced by theist beliefs. No, you should go outside.

And how, exactly, did you come to this conclusion? If people want to engage in group prayer then, by all means, they should be allowed to.

...Oh. I thought he didn't go to public school in the US because it didn't exist at that time...

No one is alienating the minority. No one is even telling you that you have to go anywhere. Do you leave the room when someone begins saying the PoA? I wouldn't think so, as I believe you'd just not say it. Yet, somehow, this logic an't be applied elsewhere? That makes little to no sense to me. Anyway, when did it become fashionable to restrict the rights of the majority to appease the minority?

(And don't give me this hogwash that there are other religious groups. While that might be, guess who it was who challenged the PoA, prayer in school and the words "In God We Trust"?.)

The first amendment not only protects one's right to believe what they want, but it also protects the religious from non-religious measures (That means that amendments which are set up to restrict one's practice of their religion are also prohibited). You seem to forget that those "Basic rights" apply to everyone. It seems as if the only one trying to bend those basic rights are the atheists. By prohibiting theists to engage in public prayer, you are taking away the basic right of being able to express one's religion freely.

And, for the record, I believe prayer was first established in school by Congress in 1782 (By those forefathers you mentioned, nevertheless) and lasted about 180 years.

I have a question: What's the difference between student led prayer groups on school grounds and teacher led prayer groups on school grounds (Aside from the fact that one is perfectly legal and the other isn't)?

All I can say at this point is that everything you are saying of athiests, can and has been said about the religious.

Like... because thats exactly what you are doing

and because you can go outside to pray

and

because you've never been forced not to pray, and I can garrentee that.



and about this one I'm not even sure how you can possibly say that, without truly knowing that its a pile of crap.

You first say that the minority should succumb to you because your majority, then you can somehow say that? Boggles my mind.



I don't understand what is so hard to understand about Teachers = Government employees, they can't endorse ANY religion. Students = not government employees.

It's that simple.

Religion has no place in the curriculum of a public school.

Just make the prayer group an extra curricular activity. If you want to pray at school, just make a Jesus Club and meet after school hours.

Otherwise, why are you wasting precious school funding on proselytizing? This is not an us vs. them issue (or at least it shouldn't be). It is a matter of seeing that you live in a secularly governed nation. Religion has its place but that place is separate from the public sector (i.e. government and government run institutions).

Yep, unless Jesus or Matthew are going to be tutoring my kid in calculus, then its clearly a misuse of public funds. Take it after / before school. As long as equivalent time/space is available for other clubs as well, I think that's the appropriate way to handle it.

I can't even fathom running someone out of town because their family has a different belief system and they raise legally valid questions about the school system / court system / etc.

Heh, so, to get back on the topic of the CNN piece a little bit, I sent an email to them complaining about the lack of any Atheist representation on the program. I didn't really expect anyone of importance to read it, but figured I would send it to at least make myself feel better. However, the reply I got was pretty good....

Dear I-Reporter,

On behalf of CNN, please accept our sincere thanks for your I-Report submission during our memorial coverage of the tragic death of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin. Thanks to the many submissions from our viewers, our coverage carried the personal touch that came from his vast and personal outreach to his many fans. Our programming effort was a huge success, and you are part of the reason for that.

Again, we sincerely thank you and hope you will continue to send relevant submissions to us at http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/

Best wishes,

CNN Public Information

Ratings.

And now we see the difference between television and journalism, for they are not the same thing.

what an idiotic "debate"....why does anyone watch cnn again? is there any motivation beyond the fact that it sucks a bit less than fox news? dont you find this more indicative than exceptional when it comes to thinking about cnn coverage of "news"?
to "debate" a controversial issue, assemble a panel of three conservatives. to "debate" the issue of atheism, get three conservative christians.
let them make a series of bizarre-o claims about the christian identity of the united states. say nothing.
let them say that atheists should" just shut up" and say nothing.
act as though this idiocy represents the parameters of acceptable debate.
it really is amazing.

so why does anyone watch cnn and confuse it with a legitimate information source again?

It wasn't big enough. Atheism has about 14% of the country. That's a lot of people. Also, atheism is hundreds to thousands of years old.
Ridiculous? It's simple. The OP had a video making it clear that 3 Christians had no trouble bashing atheism, depsite a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Then you made the claim that it happens all the time to Christians by atheists. Sorry, but you're wrong. You had to scourt the web, TV, and radio, and you found basically nothing. I'll bet $5 that you had to find that info and that you'd never heard of it before you had to go find it to back up something you pulled squarely from your butt.

The point is that you pulled it from your butt, and it's too late to try and fix it. The point is that, rather than address the point of the thread, you tried to make atheists seem equally insensitive and ignorant. Swing and a miss, again.
There's a difference between faulty logic and something that's obviously too complicated for you to understand. Let me make this simple: Prayer doesn't belong in schools. When prayer is in schools, it's wrong.
So then we VOTE and make this a theocracy, or you're wrong. Are we a theocracy? No. Therefore, you're wrong. Why are you trying to make this so complicated?
It's simple: when the school supports a certian religion, it's wrong. Pray silently all you want. Pray before you eat the crappy school lunch, pray befor taking that big math test, pray because you're worried about that bully, but a teacher leading a prayer is wrong.
Again, I'm sorry this is too complicated for you. Let me break it down.

From wiki
It's the law, sport, and we're going to obey it until you change it. And you won't be able to change it because even thouygh a vast majority of this country is Christian, very few of those Christians want to force their religion on others.

Uh...good question. Probably comparable to thinking 'Survivor' is 'reality tv'.
/me runs like hell from all the 'Survivor' fanatics.....

Halx, of all the problems with the media you could attack, you went and picked one of the weakest examples.

The first video was actually quite unbalanced - in favor of the athiests. If they'd wanted to do a balanced piece they should have talked to the other side - find the christians that are angry with the athiests and get their side of it. They didn't, so yes it was an irresponsible piece, but 180 degrees off from your interpretation.

The panel was not a discussion of the truth of athiesm vs. belief-in-deity. The panel was a discussion of whether or not athiests should be ostracized for their beliefs. You had 2 religious nuts (they need to shut up, I have the right to make everyone pray in school, etc) who wanted to ostracize them, one who didn't, and Paula questioned the nuts a lot harder than she questioned the reasonable man. It was a lot more balanced than most panel discussions. Yeah, would've been nice to have a second actual panelist against bashing athiests, but if you have a 3 person panel talking about a 2 sided issue you're gonna have imbalance one way or the other.

Frankly I'd like to see this stupid panel crap disappear forever. I don't care what 3 random bozos off the street think.

The arguement going on between Willravel and IL here is exactly why I think they didn't have any athiests on the CNN spot. It would have become an actual debate rather than a discussion and I believe that it would have gotten out of hand too.

My friend just said the perfect thing "They're all blinded by the light of God." this is exactly what I think.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif
And there is the finger on the pulse that is CNN.....

I know it's not representative, but I found this today, and it reminded me of the worst excesses of some theists.

http://pics.obra.se/1170191653865.jpg

Please tell me you photoshopped that, Daniel. If you scanned it out of your local paper, I'm terrified.

"In God We Trust" didn't appear on the currency until the Civil War.