Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Again, I disagree. If a group of chinese students wanted to gather to speak with a chinese community leader before school and other students wandered up wanting to interject into the conversation with other languages, they too would be asked not to participate as the focus is on speaking chinese. They have to have some basic understanding of the material before participating. Telling the original group to shut up or go elsewhere feels like a violation of free speech (as well as violation of the right to freely practice religion in the case of the flagpole prayers since they really are not hurting anyone).

 

I would agree, however, if someone who was not Chinese, came up ands started speaking Chinese and got turned away, then it would be an issue, and it wasn't for the fact that such a group goes against the bylaws of the school.

 

It may also be that the minister is only doing this with students from whose parents he has received permission to do it. In which case, the parents of those interested could speak with him about it.

 

Which would be understandable. I would even suggest it, so that the man can protect himself and his church.

 

As for telling him to move off school property - how closely do they actually monitor who shows up there and does what when kids are being dropped off? If a parent chose to do the same thing with their child and other children wanted to join in, would the school kick them off the property too? This group is not actually in the school building nor is it during class hours; does the school monitor grounds use around the clock?

 

Legally, it is required too. Yes, often such monitoring fails, but they are supposed to monitor that closely, yes.

 

culture, it was about a special interest group having criteria to be part of the group. In the language case

 

And groups like that are like that are forbidden by the school. If we were talking about a school where such a group was not against the bylaws of the school, I wouldn't have a problem.

 

In my opinion, the atheists here are objecting to a harmless display of faith, objecting to diversity of beliefs being allowed to be shown. Your argument about "Because cultural diversity is needed and you're basically alienating people with different heritages from learning more about the said culture" really applies here - I think we need to build more acceptance of a variety of faiths rather than use blatant attempts to bury them.

 

But not by sending children home crying to their parents because they weren't allowed to participate. Not by breaking the rules of the school itself.

 

This is why we get the zero tolerance policies. You can’t do this reasonably case-by-case? From articles around the web, it appears that he’s been doing this for about 12 years. Why nothing done before? For one, schools allow access to their track and P.E. area. The flag was no different.

 

You could say the same thing about Penn State. If no one comes clean to seeing anything, it could be that he could be harming kids, but nobody wants to say anything. I'm not saying he is, I'm saying that you cannot know.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that community-led Christian clubs can use the PA system of schools, and it doesn't mean endorsement from the school.

 

That's only if such clubs are allowed by the school. If there was, I would have no issue with it.

 

You’ve said this pastor turned them away. How would you confirm the accusation is true even if you called? The FfRF made no mention of it. Annie’s statements don’t indicate that has happened. (In fact, you would think he’d want them there, if those kids are impressionable, and he’s “preying on them”.) The attorneys’ statements all revolve around “sponsorship”. Not one article mentions turning away the kids.

 

That's what I was told. I can only go by what I was told when I called.

 

Why can't the world me more like that? Why do people expressing their beliefs in a group in a somewhat public setting have to get lambasted for it? :/

 

Agreed. I wish it could be more like Sock's example.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to establish; I believe in one true God, up to isomorphism.

Share this post


Link to post

You could say the same thing about Penn State. If no one comes clean to seeing anything, it could be that he could be harming kids, but nobody wants to say anything. I'm not saying he is, I'm saying that you cannot know.

 

But why take the paranoid stance? Look at all the states with concealed carry permits.

 

That's only if such clubs are allowed by the school. If there was, I would have no issue with it.

 

Does the school allow clubs?

 

That's what I was told. I can only go by what I was told when I called.

 

I realize.

Share this post


Link to post

hay just thought that i would try to find some other wiccans, since this is a general discussion thread. i live in a small country town so i am solitary and loney.

Share this post


Link to post
Why can't the world me more like that? Why do people expressing their beliefs in a group in a somewhat public setting have to get lambasted for it? :/

I don't think that the public setting is the problem. The problem is that it's a school, and this minister could be affecting children and he may have no authority or license to do so. I don't think anybody is trying to tell Christians that they can't express their beliefs in public at all, but there is a time and place for organized religious meetings. A public school is not one of them, especially not if it is exclusionary or non-sanctioned by school rules.

 

People express their beliefs in public all the time. That's what the principle of free speech is, and, for the most part, the country upholds that principle.

Share this post


Link to post

prairiecow; out of sheer curiosity, could you explain your religion a bit?

 

i, myself, am non-religious, and i've done little research on other religions. not because i think it's wrong to have a religion -trust me, i think it's fine- but because i never really bothered.

 

i know the basics of the more common religions in my area - christianity and catholicism and judaism - but wiccan is a blank slate to me.

 

edit because i can't spell.

Edited by Xyzaq

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is that it's a school, and this minister could be affecting children and he may have no authority or license to do so.

*scratches chin* Not that I'm defending the minister in this case, just questioning your points here. From whom should a minister get a license to affect children? The state?

Share this post


Link to post

Licenses. Teehee. Now THERE is something that would spark an interesting discussion... But it probably doesn't belong in the religion thread, more in the politics.

 

good question though, should a minister have to have a "license" to speak to little children? I'm assuming because this is happening immediately before school hours that the parents dropping the children off know of this and are consenting to it. If he's doing it without parental knowledge, and therefore without their consent, I am wholeheartedly against that, even if he IS preaching Christian ideals and wanting them to "do good things." The foremost authority in an instance where it's perfectly legal and not actually part of the "school" program is the family in my eyes. So as long as the parents are aware of what is going on and are fine with their children participating, by all means I would say let them continue. If they DON'T know what is going on they should be informed so that they can give a yea or nay for their child/grandchild/etc as the responsible adult with immediate authority over them.

Share this post


Link to post
I think by "license" the intended meaning was "right to do something", not a piece of paper.

Then that goes to my assumption that the children's parents are aware and have given consent. If not, those parents should be informed and be allowed to make the decision. If yes, if no laws are being broken and it is not an official part of the school program, there is no legitimate reason for breaking it up and doing so would be a violation of both the rights to assemble freely and freedom of religion.

Share this post


Link to post

License is not a "right to do something" nor a "piece of paper" but a "privilege to do something". Such as a marriage license; that isn't the paper so much as the privilege to marry granted by the state--one has been given license to do this thing. How it was phrased did conjure up images of getting permission from someone to affect children, though if the word was poorly used, it was poorly used.

Share this post


Link to post
Kestra, that sounds interesting, how does that work?

I believe that there is one God, one single deity. But because humans are stupid, we've misinterpreted and misrepresented Him/Her/It again and again, hence the multitude of religions. The actual expression is an old maths joke, about what a mathematician said when he was asked if he believed in 'one true God.'

 

(Just to explain, isomorphic structures are structurally identical, if more minute definitional differences are ignored.)

Share this post


Link to post

*facepalm* Oh dear.

 

By "license" I meant "freedom to do something". I didn't mean he had to get a document from the government or anything. I'm sorry I confused people, but I honestly didn't know my word choice was problematic.

 

My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
prairiecow; out of sheer curiosity, could you explain your religion a bit?

Sure. smile.gif What would you like to know? Like any religion, Wicca is a rather wide-ranging topic and it would help if you narrowed down the field a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
*facepalm* Oh dear.

 

By "license" I meant "freedom to do something". I didn't mean he had to get a document from the government or anything. I'm sorry I confused people, but I honestly didn't know my word choice was problematic.

 

My bad.

Hee, no worries, it's just "freedom to do" and "license to do" are very, very different things! There is no meaning of license that allows freedom, it is only permission to do something, so sometimes people say, "feel free to do X" when what they are really doing is granting license to do X. When I say, "Feel free to make yourself at home," I am not giving you all the freedom you enjoy in your own home: you cannot sell my home, for instance, nor take up residence, paint the walls. I am giving you license to behave with less stricture in my home; get a soda out of the fridge if you are thirsty without asking and sleep under my roof for the night.

 

Anyhow, I'll take that you meant he was not free to affect children at a school, which is, of course, problematic in its own right, but different than he didn't have license to affect children at a school.

 

I believe that there is one God, one single deity. But because humans are stupid, we've misinterpreted and misrepresented Him/Her/It again and again, hence the multitude of religions. The actual expression is an old maths joke, about what a mathematician said when he was asked if he believed in 'one true God.'

 

That makes sense as a way of looking at it. I looked up "isomorphic" and got hints of interesting things where one could study one structure to get an idea of the other. While not entirely possible for one God, I do like the idea of studying His reflection to get an idea of His nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Sure. smile.gif What would you like to know? Like any religion, Wicca is a rather wide-ranging topic and it would help if you narrowed down the field a bit.

Perhaps the way they think; are there any gods?

 

Or is it the way people act, not based on a deity of some sort?

Share this post


Link to post
Hee, no worries, it's just "freedom to do" and "license to do" are very, very different things! There is no meaning of license that allows freedom, it is only permission to do something, so sometimes people say, "feel free to do X" when what they are really doing is granting license to do X. When I say, "Feel free to make yourself at home," I am not giving you all the freedom you enjoy in your own home: you cannot sell my home, for instance, nor take up residence, paint the walls. I am giving you license to behave with less stricture in my home; get a soda out of the fridge if you are thirsty without asking and sleep under my roof for the night.

 

Anyhow, I'll take that you meant he was not free to affect children at a school, which is, of course, problematic in its own right, but different than he didn't have license to affect children at a school.

 

I believe that there is one God, one single deity. But because humans are stupid, we've misinterpreted and misrepresented Him/Her/It again and again, hence the multitude of religions. The actual expression is an old maths joke, about what a mathematician said when he was asked if he believed in 'one true God.'

 

That makes sense as a way of looking at it. I looked up "isomorphic" and got hints of interesting things where one could study one structure to get an idea of the other. While not entirely possible for one God, I do like the idea of studying His reflection to get an idea of His nature.

Yes, permission is the word I was looking for I suppose. What I was trying to express was that I didn't know if the minister had permission to do what he was doing. I don't necessarily mean express permission, like asking the principal or school board or whatever. I'm just wondering if the school rules permit him to be on school grounds with the kids, interacting with them in such a way. In my eyes, that's the problem. It's not whether it was a religious meeting, it's whether or not the meeting was allowed at all.

 

I wouldn't want creepy ministers given the "license" tongue.gif to go to my kid's school and interact with them outside. Seems dangerous. (Hypothetically of course. I don't have a kid.)

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't looked into it, but from what Shiny said, the school didn't allow such a meeting by its rules. Some schools do, others don't. So in this instance, it seems he didn't have permission to be there because the school had rules expressly forbidding such a meeting. If that's so, I'd take issue with it, though maybe not a huge one, and for the same reason: not because it's a religious meeting but because the school expressly forbade it.

 

On the other hand, if the school only forbids those kinds of meetings if they are religious, I'd take issue with that, too, and a bigger one.

 

Still, it's not something I know the details of so this is just a broad, general opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps the way they think; are there any gods?

 

Or is it the way people act, not based on a deity of some sort?

Wicca is defined by the honoring of Deity in male and female polarity, as a God and a Goddess who exist in complementary harmony. Different Wiccans draw deities from different pantheons, and in many of the initiatory Traditions of Wicca the names and identities of the Gods honored by the coven are an oathbound Mystery revealed only to properly prepared initiates.

 

Morally, Wicca is largely based in negative consequence Utilitarianism: the idea that any action which minimizes or eliminates harm is a potentially morally acceptable action. This is summed up in the Wiccan Rede: "If you harm none, do what you will." In my experience Wiccans are not usually overly concerned with the Gods "watching over us" or judging us, an attitude reflected in the lack of a concept equivalent to Hell and, as a rule, fairly little worry about the nature of the afterlife.

 

Hope that answers your questions adequately. smile.gif If you have any further questions please feel free to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
It is impossible to not harm anything, does that only apply to people?

Ah... this is a common misconception about the Wiccan Rede.

 

The Rede suggests that all actions leading to no harm or to minimal harm are potentially morally acceptable. It makes no statement concerning necessary acts of positive harm such as competing for a job or killing animals in order to eat.

 

You are quite correct: avoiding harm is absolutely impossible. What Wiccans (as a rule) commit themselves to doing is to minimize the occurrence of unnecessary harm. As the Lycean version of the Rede puts it: "If you harm none, do what you will. If you must harm, do only what is necessary."

Share this post


Link to post
Wicca is defined by the honoring of Deity in male and female polarity, as a God and a Goddess who exist in complementary harmony. Different Wiccans draw deities from different pantheons, and in many of the initiatory Traditions of Wicca the names and identities of the Gods honored by the coven are an oathbound Mystery revealed only to properly prepared initiates.

 

Morally, Wicca is largely based in negative consequence Utilitarianism: the idea that any action which minimizes or eliminates harm is a potentially morally acceptable action. This is summed up in the Wiccan Rede: "If you harm none, do what you will." In my experience Wiccans are not usually overly concerned with the Gods "watching over us" or judging us, an attitude reflected in the lack of a concept equivalent to Hell and, as a rule, fairly little worry about the nature of the afterlife.

 

Hope that answers your questions adequately. smile.gif If you have any further questions please feel free to ask.

Yes, it does.

 

Thank you. ^^

Share this post


Link to post

I had an interesting discussion with a Christian communist today that made me think about the pledge drama.

 

Now, I myself, have always opposed the words "under God" in the pledge because it insults the veterans who served prior to the cold war, and could easily be seen as an attempt to force religion and/or monotheism on the students, but mostly because of the former reason.

 

Now, the words were added in 1954, after the knights of Columbus and a bunch of preachers got together. The big reason we added it was to differ ourselves from the "godless communists" as in Marxist communism. Many people today hold that God/Jesus is against communism. Some people even claim it's referenced in Revelation.

 

But given that the apostolic church was either socialistic or communistic, that while Jesus was alive all money was kept in common, and that the US was originally founded as a communist society by the pilgrims, why do you think the idea of communism somehow being unbiblical comes from?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.