South Carolina Lawmakers Renew Effort to Introduce Prayer in Public Schools, Selling It as a Long Moment of Silence

“We already have Guns, Drugs, Sex, what’s wrong with something that is GOOD!”

Sex is good. I thought they think guns are good too, or am I lumping them together with Right Wing nuts too much?

You want something good? Try following the law.

Delusions about a man in the sky who will torture you forever if you don’t kiss his ass are the opposite of good.

Oh my god do you guys see that? There are two lines going straight across the United States where people aren’t allowed to pray. Our founding fathers would be so disappointed. Fucking OBAMA!!!11!!one!

“Students who don’t want to participate would be allowed to leave the classroom, the bill states.”
Goodbye Contituionally mandated secularism and hello ostracization by one’s peer group. I know as a kid I don’t think I would have opted out given worries about what my classmates would have thought.

Oh my god, I hope to fuck that this passes!

Why?

Because it will show how absolutely boneheaded they are. “Students who don’t want to participate would be allowed to leave the classroom, the bill states.”

I taught for 5 years. Give the kids 1 minute to fuck around in the hallway instead of being in the classroom? 90% of them are going to take that moment. Then you’re going to have to drag their asses back in, find the ones that escaped, etc. It’s going to make it just a little more hellish for teachers than it already is.

Of course, the conclusion of this will be, “You’re due in class as soon as the moment of prayer is over.” Thus negating the entire purpose of this bill. The 10% of kids that want to pray can do it, the other 90% will screw around in the hall, and the first class of the day will be 3 minutes shorter due to the delay in getting those 90% back into the classroom.

It will be a moral victory for all involved, and will totally prevent anything bad from happening in school because god was invited in.

South Carolina cares not for your puny “Constitution” and “Bill of Rights!” They will have their theocratic, Tea Party Dystopia come Hell or high water*.

*Probably going to be high water since they don’t like paying attention to climate science.

They pulled this off in Illinois a few years ago.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/illinois-school-prayer-mo_n_809181.html

Former teacher here, too. They will have to appoint a godless atheist teacher in every hallway to watch the godless atheist children in the hallway. Then who will watch the godless atheist’s teacher’s class while they pray and the teacher’s in the hall? Or will they expect teachers to stand in the doorway to watch both? Kids only spend 7-8 hours a day at school. Why can’t they just pray during those other 16 hours a day? Or at lunch?
What will also end up happening is kids will come to school late since they don’t need to be there for prayer, further discouraging children from attending school or getting there on time. No one in politics ever thinks these kinds of things through, do they?

Maybe if the also ruled that people would have to spend a minute of thinking before church service I might reconsider my opposition to this.

Are you saying that there are schools without a “moment of silence” every day? I guess it’s a normal part of living in Texas. It was always so stupid, just like saying the pledge every day, it just comes off as creepy to me.

A theocratic Tea Party Dystopia actually does sound like a good setting for a post-apocalyptic thriller.

Many of them see those other problems as a result of taking God out of the classroom. So they figure it will solve all their other problems. Or they want their voters to think so.

Does it really have control over your life?

“Is there a secret factory that cranks out clueless politcians?? ”
Yes, I believe they are called “churches.”

The way some believers act, really leads you to the conclusion that there’s no God? How does this make sense?

I would think that would be obvious in context, but I’m referring to god.

And don’t waste your breath preaching at me. I’m well aware that you’re going to think I’m wrong, and want to tell me about how you see god as a real, loving awesome thing. I don’t want or need to hear it.

No, but that’s why separation of church and state is important. It used to control our lives, back when they were executing people for being atheist.

People throughout history used any excuse in the world to kill and control others

Do us all a favour and find a new trolling style. You’re not as dumb as you pretend to be, and frankly it’s annoying.

As to your questions, 1) Have you ever read the bible? and 2) Did you read the article?

(The answers to that are No and No.)

Better question: Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish? And haven’t you gotten tired of this shit?You’re not wanted, and you’re not getting anywhere converting anyone.

That would be yes and yes, actually. But why would you assume I didn’t read the Bible or read the article? I just asked a question, no need to be irrational

That’s mostly how they justified their actions, doesn’t mean God really wanted them to do it. They picked whatever they wanted from scripture and interpreted what best suited their desires, whether it be for control, murder, anything.

Exactly. And yet you claim that book, or others like it, are holy words from god that make people better.

A truly perfect god wouldn’t ever be misinterpreted, because, you know, perfect. Unless he wanted to be misinterpreted, which means he really did want all the control and murder and everything.

How do you know your god didn’t want the murder and control, anyways? You even said people use your scriptures to justify horrible things- how do you know you aren’t reading it wrong?

Millions of atheists and communists followed Mao and Stalin. Your point?

So people kill in God’s name, but God keeps silent instead of condemning aloud? Sounds like approval to me. I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent; surely he could muster a “hey, you’re misusing me!” comment every once in a while, right?

That depends on which pieces of what Jesus said you follow. Given that Jesus explicitly condones slavery, prefers celibacy to marriage, tells women to sit down and shut up, and is rather anti-Semitic in places, Jesus doesn’t teach good things.

The NT also teaches anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, dysfunctional and broken families, war, and slavery. It’s not a good book.

If your god was perfect, he wouldn’t make his book such an incoherent, contradictory clusterfuck that people could easily use it to justify all sorts of horrible things. Putting one’s trust in something so irrational and, well, nonexistent is a really bad idea. Remember, you have to show evidence that it exists first, then we move on to whether worship is a good idea or not.

Probably Genesis 1:27 tips it off.

“So God created man in His own image”

He could tell us to stop and that would not violate our free will in the slightest as long as he didn’t control our minds.

What does free will have to do with this? If God has communicated several times in the past, clearly he can do so again.

Are you saying that Paul was off the reservation?

Also, if Jesus promoted slavery, then why are slave traders lumped in the same category as adulterers, perverts and liars?

They aren’t.

Not really. I would think he was referring to women at the time (you should know how women acted in Pagan Rome and Greece), and alot what Paul wrote about, referred to the socio-cultural environment of the time

Oh here we go, grading God on a curve again. Through God, all things are possible, except apparently changing the social structure to be more just.

And, please, tell us “how women acted” in Pagan Rome and Greece that would suggest a proper remedy being they sit down and shut up. That will, at the least, be entertaining.

It really depends on which version of the Bible you are reading.

Some versions will say enslavers and slave traders, while others say kidnappers.

And I’d argue that since Moses’s law is perfectly fine with slavery, and Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, that the original texts had more to do with kidnapping than slavery.

Your evidence for this?

Actually, Timothy says that Jesus said to tell the world those things. So there is that. Unless you think that Timothy was lying about that? And if Timothy was lying, why not conclude they’re all lying?

And slave traders are not slave holders, now are they? Even people who owned or captured slaves often saw traders as the lowest of the low, because they treated their “merchandise” badly. You are aware of the vicissitudes of Roman slavery, which was lifelong and hereditary, right? Furthermore, you do know that slavery in Israelite times wasn’t nearly as “nice” as Christians like to make it out- Israelite men could be freed after 6 years, but women and children weren’t, women could be sold as sex slaves, and foreigners were subject to chattel slavery (there are rules on inheriting slaves, none of which is “you can’t do that”).

Please tell me in what context these verses are ever ethically acceptable. Then tell me why they have less validity than the verse you focus on.

1) Foreigners were chattel slavery, who were owned for life and could be passed as property to one’s heirs
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

2) Hebrew men had to be set free after six years. Women and children, on the other hand, didn’t have to be, and so could be held hostage to force a man to declare himself a permanent slave to stay with his family.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

3) Oh look, rules for selling one’s daughter into permanent sex slavery!
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

4) And, of course, the biblical justification for beating one’s slaves only almost to death
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

5) You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
a) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
b) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

6) In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

So, in the context of the second greatest sort of institutionalized crime humans have yet been inventive enough to commit (genocide probably eking out a victory as greatest), the best the Bible and the God who inspired it could muster is neutrality.

A little historical research

Such as?

And if Timothy was lying, why not conclude they’re all lying?

Seriously?

Assuming the gospels reflect a historical Jesus, Jesus and certainly Paul were apocalypticists who believed God would soon intervene in history and establish the kingdom. They promoted moral idealism in anticipation of the cataclysm but didn’t advocate a political restructuring of the social order. They expected God to reorder reality.

I admire your effort to make it sound bad, though

Your god saying it is ok to beat your slaves, or that selling your daughter into slavery is perfectly fine then?

I’m sorry, a moral god would say “thou shalt not own another human being.” A moral Jesus would tell slavers to leave their masters, especially the cruel ones.

Yes, Jesus (at least the one in the Bible) had some good points, but you are completely glossing over many of the things that were bad.

No effort required. Them’s the words. You think they’re holy, you justify them. I feel perfectly free to condemn them as horrible.

So tell me, in what context are these not horrible? Why do you feel free to ignore these verses and not others?

Why would you assume the gospels reflect a historical Jesus, since they were written well after his death by people who never met him?

First of all, what is wrong with tits hanging out, sex in the streets, or being “loud and disruptive” (ie, existing at all in a leadership or teaching role) during service?

Second, please cite your sources, just a little bit. “A little historical research” is really not much to go on.

Even assuming that they were written by eye witnesses (which is a stretch), human memory is terrible after a few hours often, after 3 decades at a minimum, it will be abysmal except for a few things.

I can remember a few details here and there about important events (day I graduated bootcamp (14 years ago), my weddings (11 years ago), high school graduation (14 years ago), college graduation (2 years ago) and I couldn’t tell you a whole lot of details about those events. I may get a few words here or there correct, but my mind is busy filling in a lot of the blanks for me.

Even considering that they may have better memories than I do, 3 decades is a very long time to distort the truth.

“Students who don’t want to participate would be allowed to leave the classroom.”

I’d have taken that opportunity. There would have been no guarantee that I’d be back in class (or school) that day.

Of course, because they remember the “good ole days” when school shootings didn’t happen, and bad things didn’t happen ever at school.

Of course “back then” we didn’t have the Internet and nearly instant access to news 24/7. When bad things happened, many people may not even know about it unless it was devastating, like the bombing in the 20’s in the elementary school that killed 30+ if I remember my numbers correctly.

But people have very selective memories of the good ole days, ignoring that there were no equal rights, and just because it was good for Mr. White Christian it may not have been so happy happy joy joy for others.

The Handmaid’s Tale was quite good. I’m reading Atwood’s Oryx and Crake right now.

Which doesn’t explain why they explicitly condone slavery, though. Even if you think God’s going to fix everything, surely you’re not going to say “that thing over there is horrifically immoral so we’re going to say … keep doing it”.

Also, that’s a really big assumption. Yes, you were assuming for the sake of argument, but it’s almost not worth even engaging what comes after because the assumption is just so thin. It’s like me prefacing an argument with “Assuming the sun goes around the Earth …”. It doesn’t. So why even bother with whatever comes next?

And of course I quote them. Whoever wrote them says horrible things in the guise of religious wisdom, which people either follow to bad effect or ignore and then proclaim the entire book good and holy. One can easily use the quotes purported to be by him without giving one inch on the question of whether Jesus ever actually existed or not (which I still maintain is highly unlikely though not impossible).

And the students this would typically be affecting wouldn’t have the critical thought to understand that they don’t want to be there unless instructed by their parents. I remember the lords prayer back in my youth, to me it was just a bunch of words I could never remember.

“And if you want nothing to do with God, why talk about It?”

Because we can talk about ‘It’ if we choose to. And on this blog, WE choose to.

>No honest person reading Jesus’ words

Where are these words? Do you mean the words that Greeks invented 100 years after the supposed events? Because if anyone found any actual writing by Jesus it would be the first time. EVER!

Bear in mind: the reason these laws are getting proposed (and, alas, passed) is because the people responsible for them are terrified that without compulsion of some kind, folks won’t pray, kowtow to their imaginary friend, or pay attention to them. That’s it. People are drifting away so much that Christianity’s dominance is falling to pieces–they cannot compel belief and attention with rational arguments or evidence, and so this is what it has come down to. “Do what I say, or else.” “Because shut up, that’s why.” Force and coercion. That’s the only way they can get prayer into these kids now. It’s mind-boggling they’d actually admit it like this, but here we are.

The Christian students in these schools will likely feel quite a bit of smug pleasure at the idea of getting to force their views onto others, and yes, I can definitely see some bullying or coercion going on as “Christian love” gets mandated across that state. But what of the non-Christians? If Christians do succeed in forcing schoolchildren to kowtow to their imaginary friend for one minute every day, besides the total chaos that will ensue, do they imagine that non-Christian students will magically see how wonderful their religion is if forced to engage with it against their wills and under the threat of being bullied if they take advantage of the dubious escape hatch offered oh so very generously by the privilege-blind makers of this law?

I see this news as a win for secularism on every single level. It means that the light is finally showing at the end of the tunnel. Christianity’s influence is so weak now that those who practice it are panicking.

You forgot the state constitution.

Unfortunately, a lack of education correlates with susceptibility to religion.

The context that Keyra has shown time and again is to embrace the parts you already believe in and ignore or use a flimsy rationalization for the parts that make you uncomfortable.

I’ve not read it. What about it?

‘Man in the sky’ is a *traditional* Abrahamic belief that was, like many untenable beliefs, abandoned when it became embarrassing. I believe it comes from Hadad and other sky/sun gods but other disparate religions held that ‘celestial bodies’ were divine in some way too. Hence the word celestial being used the way it is to both mean ‘heavenly things’ and ‘stuff we can see in the sky’. Indeed ‘the heavens’ is still synonymous with ‘the sky’.

There are either politicians or people to whom these politicians capitulate to retain them as voting base who are convinced that a) religious ritual will avail the practitioner of everything; they literally believe that school prayer will improve any particular degeneracy you can account for, and b) that those who do no participate are contributing to said degeneracy.

This is not new. It has been going on in the US since at least the Great Awakening.

I will never have enough upvotes for you.

When I was in elementary school, we said the Pledge and then had a moment of silence. I would wonder why we were saying a pledge to a flag and not to our country or something. But I didn’t know that I was supposed to be praying during the silence afterward. No one ever said that’s what it was for, or why we did it, but we did, everyday.

Which is remarkable, going from born to auditory in one morning. Also, is she condescending otherwise? I would have had trouble being polite whilst being provoked.

Millions of terrified people either followed or were butchered by officially atheist (distinctly not humanist, etc.) and dictatorial communist authorities.

Your point, aside to being blind of nuance?

Sadly, it’s true.
Christiandom pushes its people into taking public roles. The Christians develop emotionally driven rhetoric, coming across as articulate & passionate, but lacking basic reason & cultural empathy &…well, most everything else necessary to actually govern ably in a pluralistic society.

Gospel of Mark thought to have been written c. 65-70 AD.

That would be 35-40 years. But do go on, Professor.

I’ll be happier when they mandate a moment of science in schools.

The trouble with stereotypes. In my defense, I can only say that Edmonton is north of the arrow’s end.

Also it is one of the most conservative parts of one of our ‘reddest’ provinces.

Perhaps she’s like a lot of people end that end up disappointed with their Christmas holidays. I hope she’s a better friend the rest of the year, otherwise…

The good thing was that we were chatting on Yahoo. I can take a few deep breaths before replying. Or pretend I was in the bathroom and compose my reply. 🙂

Now last night it got a little more dicey when healthcare and Obama came up.

You have a problem with this? Why?

I’d have issues with others disrupting a service, because its rude.

As far as nudity goes, I could care less.

Oh sure. The Romans came down hard on slave rebellions and their supporters. There’s some very practical reasons not to go about calling for the abolishment of slavery.

Which still makes that a cowardly and immoral thing to do if you’re writing a book of perfect morality. I know you don’t think it is, of course, but many people do. And yes, I do think that just throwing the assumption of a historical Jesus out there is a huge stretch that pretty much invalidates most of what’s about to come out next, though admittedly, not as strongly as I worded it. Heliocentrism is a much stronger theory than that of a purely mythical Jesus.

>State your case.

I did. There’s no evidence for any gospel before 135 CE. If you have any, show it.

No, you didn’t. You made an assertion, and an ambiguous one at that. What do you mean exactly when you say “there’s no evidence for any gospel before 135 CE?” Do you mean there’s no manuscript fragment before then? Do you mean there’s no citation of a gospel in other texts before that date?

If you’re going to post an unguarded (and ludicrous) statement like “Do you mean the words that Greeks invented 100 years after the supposed events?” then you will have to do better than that.

Your quarrel isn’t with me; it’s with the scholarly consensus. Go get ’em, cowboy.

I know you don’t think it is, of course, but many people do.

Whatever gave you that idea? Are you accusing me of sympathy with the ancients’ acceptance of slavery, yes or no? The NT authors were not concerned with writing a book of “perfect morality.” They were religious propagandists intent on persuading potential converts that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. This is basic understanding.

The assumption of a historical Jesus is not a “huge stretch.” It is the consensus among professionals who have the requisite training and knowledge to assess the probabilities. We’ve been through this before.

Heliocentrism is a much stronger theory than that of a purely mythical Jesus.

What?? The issue was whether the gospels preserve traces of the historical Jesus. Although the gospels are largely legendary and mythical, it is the consensus that, yes, they do. This is not a controversial position. You were comparing this view with the proposition that the sun revolves around the Earth. That’s ludicrous. Unless the scientific consensus radically shifted since yesterday.

I accept your complete capitulation and have added you to the list of those I have defeated.