Fuck! I'm really in the Bible belt now

[TheEarl]

I've reread this and I'm coming down cautiously on the side of it. Isn't this free speech? I'm not so happy about the fact that this law could be used to proselytise, but I'm all in favour of freedom to express my religion. Any environment that told me they didn't want me wearing a pentacle or talk to someone interested about a Sabbat would be facing a lawsuit so quickly it'd make their heads spin.

Discussion's a healthy thing. We shouldn't seek to suppress all viewpoints on the matter.

The Earl

 

[sophia jane]

Then you're rolling over and giving up without a fight. Even a fairly passive one.

First of all, the article I posted was about just introducing the bill to the state House. It hasn't even been introducted yet, it isn't near up for a vote. And I sincerely do not think it will pass.
Second of all, please do not assume you know what I am doing or not. My point is that one single letter, even to every elected official in the state of Oklahoma, is not enough to sway opinions. More aggression is needed. If somehow, the bill is up for a vote and it looks as if it has a chance of passage, I will fight. In a way that would be effective.
I'm single handedly raising three kids and going to school full time. I have to choose my battles. And I do.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Which religion has the most holidays? Does Satanism have ANY holidays? Or would they be called unholidays?

If we re-awake the religion we started last year here in AH, the Literotica Sex Sect, could we demand the right to give out pamflets about group sex and tips for better oral sex in schools?

Could we go door-to-door, flash people, and say "I'm from Literotica's Witnesses. Can I come in for a moment and talk to you about my quest for orgasms?"

We could use porno mags for text books... for once, teenage boys would be eager to do their homework!!!

 

[sophia jane]

I've reread this and I'm coming down cautiously on the side of it. Isn't this free speech? I'm not so happy about the fact that this law could be used to proselytise, but I'm all in favour of freedom to express my religion. Any environment that told me they didn't want me wearing a pentacle or talk to someone interested about a Sabbat would be facing a lawsuit so quickly it'd make their heads spin.

Discussion's a healthy thing. We shouldn't seek to suppress all viewpoints on the matter.

The Earl

It's free to discuss now. This bill would just extend the discussions into more formal manners like passing out leaflets, group prayer, etc. The problem is that in the US there is freedom of speech and seperation of church and state. Schools, being public, are a part of the state. So- no church teaching should be happening there.

 

[cloudy]

I've reread this and I'm coming down cautiously on the side of it. Isn't this free speech? I'm not so happy about the fact that this law could be used to proselytise, but I'm all in favour of freedom to express my religion. Any environment that told me they didn't want me wearing a pentacle or talk to someone interested about a Sabbat would be facing a lawsuit so quickly it'd make their heads spin.

Discussion's a healthy thing. We shouldn't seek to suppress all viewpoints on the matter.

The Earl

Earl, it's more about separation of church and state than it is about free speech. And....such is the climate here in the states that I can just about guarantee you that the only students that would actually be allowed to disseminate information, pamphlets, etc., would be Christian students. I also guarantee you that that's what the framers of the bill have in mind.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

No. It doesn't. People believe what they believe. When it comes to religion, I could be as eloquent or passionate as I want. I'm not going to change the minds of the people fighting to pass this bill; I would only give them something to argue against.

Your point is true, in that arguing with religious fanatics is a waste of time. Politicans, however, are generally fanatical only about getting reelected.

One voice, would not sway them at all. An outcry might or might not, depending on what it was likely to do to their poll numbers.

If they realize that the next time around, their opponent is going to forcefully and loudly decry them for giving Satanists sanction to pass out literature in the public schools, I'll bet you dollars to donughts they start some serious CYA. the law should already hideously fail a judicial review, but if there is a ryder on it that defines acceptable religions and some are omited, it's a dead lock the bill will be shot down.

With politicans, it's not the substance, it's the spin. And if someone slaps them real hard and points out how it could be spun against them in the next election, they'll do anything to make sure that spin can't be applied. Even passing alaw they know will fail judical review, as I suspect they sdid here. It's a sop to the religious right and nothing more. I'd be willing to bet neither the pols nor the schools have any sort of program inline to enforce or even make use of the law.

 

[entitled]

First of all, the article I posted was about just introducing the bill to the state House. It hasn't even been introducted yet, it isn't near up for a vote. And I sincerely do not think it will pass.
Second of all, please do not assume you know what I am doing or not. My point is that one single letter, even to every elected official in the state of Oklahoma, is not enough to sway opinions. More aggression is needed. If somehow, the bill is up for a vote and it looks as if it has a chance of passage, I will fight. In a way that would be effective.
I'm single handedly raising three kids and going to school full time. I have to choose my battles. And I do.

Down, killer!

If it's just being introduced, this is the perfect time to raise concerns. The more people bring up possible problems - even if it is just one person - the more it will be discussed and those possible problems will be brought to light.

Second, yes, it is enough to do something. Trust me. A letter a week to one powerful person can do a lot of damage. i know from experience.

Yes, i know you're raising three kids and going to school. i'm in a somewhat similar place - with the exception that i have no legal basis to kick their father out of the house, so i'm having to deal with him as well. i know what it is to decide what to fight. i also know from experience how very little it takes to send a letter once in a while. With as upset as you seem to be over the possibility that this is even going before the house, it might be worth that extra minute's effort.

 

[sophia jane]

Your point is true, in that arguing with religious fanatics is a waste of time. Politicans, however, are generally fanatical only about getting reelected.

One voice, would not sway them at all. An outcry might or might not, depending on what it was likely to do to their poll numbers.

If they realize that the next time around, their opponent is going to forcefully and loudly decry them for giving Satanists sanction to pass out literature in the public schools, I'll bet you dollars to donughts they start some serious CYA. the law should already hideously fail a judicial review, but if there is a ryder on it that defines acceptable religions and some are omited, it's a dead lock the bill will be shot down.

With politicans, it's not the substance, it's the spin. And if someone slaps them real hard and points out how it could be spun against them in the next election, they'll do anything to make sure that spin can't be applied. Even passing alaw they know will fail judical review, as I suspect they sdid here. It's a sop to the religious right and nothing more. I'd be willing to bet neither the pols nor the schools have any sort of program inline to enforce or even make use of the law.

This is an excellent point. Going to file the idea away, in case it comes to it.
But again, I sincerely doubt it will pass. They'd have to do a whole of a sell to get it through.

 

[BlackSnake]

Separation of church and state was implemented for a REASON!!!

this is crazy...

Yes, but this is not it. It was to allow people to worship how they pleased without government interference. That's all.

Else, lets toss the Constitution in the fire. Why? What is it based on?

That is what's crazy!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is an excellent point. Going to file the idea away, in case it comes to it.
But again, I sincerely doubt it will pass. They'd have to do a whole of a sell to get it through.

It kind of smells like a "see what we are doing for you" thing for the far right. No responsible politician would bother with it, because there is no way it would stand up to judicial review. Even the arch conservatives on the high court would balk at it and the lower feeral courts, acting on precendet would strike it down in a heartbeat.

There might be one or two who are serious about trying to pass it, but I think all but the real fanatics know it's nothing more than window dressing.

 

[BlackSnake]

By not allowing students to express their religious freedoms, the constitution is being violated.

 

[cloudy]

By not allowing students to express their religious freedoms, the constitution is being violated.

No, it isn't. It's the separation of church and state thing, Snake. No one is saying they can't discuss it on their time, just that they can't do it on the state's time, which is what school is.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

By not allowing students to express their religious freedoms, the constitution is being violated.

By allowing them to express their religion while on state property at a state sanctioned, mandatory event, they are violating the constitution.

Neither freedom of speech, nor of expression is absolute. to try and treat either as such produces a constituional paradoxx.

 

[BlackSnake]

No, it isn't. It's the separation of church and state thing, Snake. No one is saying they can't discuss it on their time, just that they can't do it on the state's time, which is what school is.

I disagree, it's not the state's time. As long as the students to don't violate school rules, such as interrupting class, the student should not be prohibited from saying grace before having their lunch, or anything else that does not infringe of the rights of others.

 

[TheEarl]

Yes, but this is not it. It was to allow people to worship how they pleased without government interference. That's all.

Else, lets toss the Constitution in the fire. Why? What is it based on?

That is what's crazy!

Technically speaking, the Christian faith says that you should proselytise in order to be a good Christian, that it is not a good thing to let your neighbour wallow in his heresy. Surely, in order to worship as they please, children should be allowed to distribute tracts?

The Earl

 

[BlackSnake]

By allowing them to express their religion while on state property at a state sanctioned, mandatory event, they are violating the constitution.

Neither freedom of speech, nor of expression is absolute. to try and treat either as such produces a constituional paradoxx.

The constitution does not end on government property. By preventing the free expression of religion the government is violating the student's constitutional rights.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The constitution does not end on government property. By preventing the free expression of religion the government is violating the student's constitutional rights.

No, it's enforcing the establishment caluse.

Sorry, but that is how the clause has been interpreted by the judiciary. Whose job it is, under the constituion to interpret the law.

 

[sophia jane]

I disagree, it's not the state's time. As long as the students to don't violate school rules, such as interrupting class, the student should not be prohibited from saying grace before having their lunch, or anything else that does not infringe of the rights of others.

Nothing stops them from saying grace now. And Oklahoma, like many other states, has a moment of silence built into the school day, giving time for silent prayer.
But say we allow vocal prayer during school time. And supposed there are five different religions represented in the class. Are five different prayers then said during class time? What educational value does that have? I send my kids to school for education, not for religious instruction, not for prayer.

 

[BlackSnake]

Technically speaking, the Christian faith says that you should proselytise in order to be a good Christian, that it is not a good thing to let your neighbour wallow in his heresy. Surely, in order to worship as they please, children should be allowed to distribute tracts?

The Earl

I disagree with allowing student to hand out flyers to other students. That would be an intrusion on the other students.

 

[sophia jane]

Technically speaking, the Christian faith says that you should proselytise in order to be a good Christian, that it is not a good thing to let your neighbour wallow in his heresy. Surely, in order to worship as they please, children should be allowed to distribute tracts?

The Earl

Sure. Outside the classroom setting.

 

[Kev H]

By not allowing students to express their religious freedoms, the constitution is being violated.

If you are arguing in theory only then you would be right, and we'd all agree to some degree or another; but in the real world...and this is what we are talking about in this instance...is much different.

Religions do not believe in freedom of expression like we do, the "hey, let's be fair to everyone" mantra. Their beliefs are based on "matters of the eternal soul," and when you start talking about things with eternity in mind, it becomes more than an interesting intellectual exercise.

Like many posters, I do not think enough elected officials are single-minded enough to give this proposal a chance; but if they did, it would be like sanctioning a kid to beat the crap out of another kid who was opposed to his beliefs (yes, this is a possible extreme look at the can of worms you would open by encouraging kids to be brazen and supported about their beliefs).

So, in theory, I'd love to see pure freedom to express whatever you believe in any nonviolent, understanding format. However, anyone with a toe-hold in the real world knows this is not possible.


PS - I am not talking out of my ass - I have seen kids beat the shit out of another kid because he was a "non-believer," and I can guarantee you they got in no trouble at home, only from the school. This would happen far more often than it does if this proposal were to go through.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Modern muslims don't drop everything to go and pray 5 times a day, not if they've got work or school. They wait until they get a break in their schedule, then go and have a quick prayer. Allah is understanding, he doesn't ask you to miss out on work or school to pray. He's flexible.

 

[BlackSnake]

Nothing stops them from saying grace now. And Oklahoma, like many other states, has a moment of silence built into the school day, giving time for silent prayer.
But say we allow vocal prayer during school time. And supposed there are five different religions represented in the class. Are five different prayers then said during class time? What educational value does that have? I send my kids to school for education, not for religious instruction, not for prayer.

I get that. I didn't much like being Catholic in a black public school in the 70's. I think that the government need not make laws concerning religion, only protect the rights of individuals. Your freedoms stop where mine begin.

 

[sophia jane]

I get that. I didn't much like being Catholic in a black public school in the 70's. I think that the government need not make laws concerning religion, only protect the rights of individuals. Your freedoms stop where mine begin.

Yes. Exactly.

 

[BlackSnake]

I...


PS - I am not talking out of my ass - I have seen kids beat the shit out of another kid because he was a "non-believer," and I can guarantee you they got in no trouble at home, only from the school. This would happen far more often than it does if this proposal were to go through.

I am completely for individual rights and freedoms. Understand, that one individual's rights end where other's begin. Allowing freedom of religion does not sanction a violation of basic common laws.