Posted by Mike O on: 08.30.2007 /
This has been circling the internet for years as something Paul Harvey wrote. I went out to snopes and found out that it actually wasn’t written by Paul Harvey, but by a sports writer from Wichita Falls, TX named Nick Gholson back in 1999. So it really is an essay that was written and published, it’s just been attributed to the wrong person.
Anyway, I know how this plays to the Christian crowd … it plays well. In fact, I will come right out and say that I agree with it. But what I don’t know is, is it true? Is prayer before a game really that big of a deal to atheists? Is it worth going to court over?
Here’s the essay Mr. Gholson actually wrote. I’ve italicized the parts that were cut out for the “Paul Harvey” version. NOTE - snopes also omitted part of the essay right at the top, so I don’t have that.
[Part of the essay omitted by Snopes]
Take this prayer deal. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Some atheists go to a high school football game, hears a kid say a short prayer before the game and gets offended. So he hires a laywer and goes to court and asks somebody to pay him a whole bunch of money for all the damage done to him.
You would have thought the kid kicked him in the crotch.
Damaged for life by a 30-second prayer? Am I missing something here?
I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I’m not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don’t agree with Darwin , but I didn’t go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what’s the big deal? It’s not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They’re just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
But it’s a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn’t be offended.
It wouldn’t bother me one bit.
When in Rome …“But what about the atheists?” Is another argument.
What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We’re not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that’s asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of earplugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
to cease praying.God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well. Just sue me.I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations. Nor do I believe that not praying will result in more serious injuries on the field or more fatal car crashes after the game.
In fact, I’m not so sure God would even be at all these games if he didn’t have to be. That’s just one of the downsides of omnipresence. Do you think God Almighty himself would have watched Spearman beat Panhandle 50-0 Friday night if he didn’t have to?
If God really liked sports, the Russians would have never won a single gold medal, New York would never play in a world series and Deion’s toe would be healed by now.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Laura M.
1 08/30/07 6:38 AM | Comment Link |I don’t have time to say what I really want to say on this subject right now, but I’ll try to make sense anyway. I think there will always be frivolous lawsuits regarding just about any subject matter you can think of, including prayer. Just because some of these suits may be frivolous doesn’t mean they all are.
The issue isn’t banning these types of prayers, the issue is banning adults from forcing these types of prayers on children against their will. The writer might not be offended to hear an Islamic prayer if he were in Bagdad, but he might be offended if his child were forced to say a prayer to Allah (that he might smite the infidels?) before being allowed to participate on his school team.
In a situation like this, forced prayer in essence means team/sports participation is only open to those of the ‘right’ religious beliefs or those willing to completely compromise their beliefs.
And we’re not talking hypothetical, we’re talking real-life here and now cases where this is happening. There was recently a story about one of these cases (in Texas I think, I wish I could remember the specifics)where a girl raised in an atheist family was forced off her basketball team and received disciplinary action for repeatedly refusing to join the rest of the team before game at midcourt for group-prayer. This story aired on one of the prime-time network newsmagazine programs during this summer.
The frivolous ones usually get thrown out quickly, but even if they don’t, these cases couldn’t win if they didn’t have merit. There’s no legal standing for passing laws to prevent a child, of their own accord, from praying before games. That’s why there are no such laws here in the U.S.
Comment by: Stephan
2 08/30/07 6:41 AM | Comment Link |I agree most with the statement about the Damn Yankees.
Comment by: Mike O
3 08/30/07 7:33 AM | Comment Link |I’ll give you that one … that was wrong.
I also know of one a couple of years ago at the other end of the spectrum in Las Vegas, of a Christian who was giving her valedictorian speech and had her mic cut off because it was referencing her reliance on God. I can’t remember the specifics, and there is some background to it. But the bottom line is, her freedom of speech was taken away.
If I remember right, they told her that would happen if she didn’t change her content, and as a form of protest, she did it anyway. The thing of it is, she should have been allowed to say what she wanted.
Comment by: cautious
4 08/30/07 8:31 AM | Comment Link |To address 2 points in the original narrative,
If someone’s happiness is contingent on not having to hear about fake entities, and then at a football game, they do… then, yes, actually, their pursuit of happiness was just stepped on. Just a tiny bit. Probably no more than it gets stepped on during a normal day.
But, that’s the joy and fun of being a religious minority: our views will always be stepped on so that the religious majority can lead their lives successfully.
Sometimes we build up mental calluses whenever we hear someone going on (or off) about their faith. Some of us do figure out that it’s that person’s problem, not ours, if they chose to use their freedom of speech to talk about unicorns.
Sometimes, in a pluralistic democracy, yes, minorities do actually have a say in what should happen. I guess the original writer would prefer it if we would just STFU.
Comment by: cautious
5 08/30/07 8:41 AM | Comment Link |Oh, to address Mike’s questions…
I think only in cases like Laura mentioned wherein the athletes aren’t allowed to play their game because they don’t agree with the prayer. Personally I think it’s much more destructive to our civilization when prayer happens before Congress.
Whenever football players make decisions that in some way affect my life…then I’d care what happens at football games. But until that time I think there are much better fish to fry.
Comment by: Laura M.
6 08/30/07 9:02 AM | Comment Link |I agree completely Mike. So does our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. That’s why I said there is no legal standing for the action taken against this girl, nor is there for the action taken against the girl you mentioned.
They both involve violations of freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to protest. And just as this girl would be justified in a lawsuit alleging infringement of her civil liberties (and in the case you’re talking about I think there was a lawsuit) so are atheists and others justified in their legal pursuit to protect their rights.
People have a right to not be forced into silence (as in the case you mentioned), they also have an equal right to not be forced into speech (like in the case I mentioned).
There is a misunderstanding that most of these lawsuits are an attempt to silence prayer. They are not. They are an attempt to protect those who are being forced into prayer, and to make it clear to those doing the forcing that they do not have the legal right to do so.
The law, however, is only as effective as the vigilance of those upholding it. If school systems ignore the law, as in both the cases we are talking about, the problem then should reasonably be taken to the courts.
It’s a shame that these types of cases are so prevalent, and not just around religion issues. A valedictorian was cut off during her commencement speech here in Texas because she chose to deliver most of her speech in Spanish.
The fact that these freedom of speech/religion issues flare up so frquently is the very reason why the ACLU takes on so many of these cases pro bono, and at all ends of the spectrum.
The system is set up to protect the rights of everyone, religious and non-religious alike. That’s why these lawsuits are a good thing. They keep the system working the way it’s supposed to, they keep it fair and honest.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7 08/30/07 9:26 AM | Comment Link |So go complain to Jesus; he was the one who said to turn the other cheek…
I don’t like the tone of this article at all. It’s very hard for me to think about whether I agree with the point he’s making when I find his tone so offensive.
Comment by: Siamang
8 08/30/07 9:51 AM | Comment Link |Believe it or not, this atheist has been known to go to churches, and I have yet to catch on fire when speaking the Lord’s Prayer.
I don’t get “offended” by hearing prayers. I get far more “offended” when hearing a bad joke, or even worse, a good joke ruined by being told poorly! ;-)
Lemme give a bit of legal background to the girl who had her microphone cut.
Back in the day, I was an editor of my High School newspaper. So I know a little bit about free-speech on campus. We ran up against that from time to time… and the deal was, the principal had final say as to what went in the school newspaper, because the newspaper was an official arm of the school.
Not me, the editor. Not my teacher the advisor. Not the student that wrote the article. The Principal (and ultimately the school district).
A year or so after I graduated, this “no freedom of the public school press” was confirmed in a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court’s rationale was this: The newspaper is run and owned and printed by the school, not the students. Therefore the content is controlled by the school. If a student wants to run an article about why he hates Whitey or why he loves Jesus, he has the free speech right to, on his own time and with his own money, print flyers and distribute them off school grounds. BUT, because the newspaper is an official publication of the School, the student has no such right to compel the School to print that statement in the School newspaper.
In the view of the court, I believe, the same would be true for the school’s graduation microphone as the school’s printing press. The girl can pray to God, and give all the speeches she wants… she can talk until she’s blue in the face. Her views on God and Christ and whatever have not been censored by the government. All the School did was take their soap-box from under her feet.
Anyway, when I was a kid, I always wished that we had the kind of directed prayer moment in my public school. I would have petitioned to lead a Satanic prayer. Hey, freedom for you means freedom for me too!
That would have been worth being valedectorian for!
Comment by: Karen
9 08/30/07 10:14 AM | Comment Link |Siamang is right. Legally, it all comes down to what is considered “official” speech at a school-sponsored event, such as a graduation or a football game.
If any student is made to feel ostracized because the school official (principal, football coach, valedictorian) is promoting a particular religion, that’s a violation of the separation of church and state. Period.
I agree with Helen, the tone of that article is bullying and nasty. And, he makes so many fallacious arguments it’s unbelievable.
He wouldn’t care if his kid had to say a prayer to Allah if he were in a Muslim nation? What - are we comparing the U.S. to a theocracy like Saudi Arabia now?! That’s hideous. We’re supposed to be a country free from that kind of religious domination. That is what made this a great country, freedom and respect for everyone! It’s really sad that this writer - whoever he was - can’t see that rather obvious and important distinction. In fact, it makes me worry about our future when so many people agree with his point of view.
Comment by: Siamang
10 08/30/07 10:35 AM | Comment Link |I’d amend that part of this article:
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Iran, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in North Korea, I would expect to hear a prayer to the Beloved Leader.
If I went to a baseball game in the pluralistic and free United States of America… I should be pleased that everyone could worship or not worship as his own conscience dictates, free from the Government’s official sanction of one belief over another.
Comment by: Stephan
11 08/30/07 12:03 PM | Comment Link |Where is Txatheist when you need him?
It seems like most of the prayer-in-schools fights take place in TX. Maybe we should have let them secede.
A couple of points. It is clear that a school official cannot lead a prayer at a school event, but some schools have tried to skirt around that rule by having a student pray. If the intent of having the student address the crowd is that they are going to pray, then it seems like that would be a violation.
If, however, it is something like a valedictorian speech and the student chooses to speak about their faith, I believe the school is wrong to try to censor them.
Regarding school censorship of student publications, I believe it is warranted if the speech is considered disruptive, abusive or indecent. But I hardly see how a student talking about their faith would fit any of those descriptions.
I also agree that the tone of the article is a tad negative, as if anyone who disagrees must be an idiot. If I wanted that attitude I would read Dawkins or Harris.
Comment by: Siamang
12 08/30/07 1:32 PM | Comment Link |It’s the Supreme Court’s view that it is not a student publication, it is a school publication. And as such, the school cannot be compelled to speak things that it does not want to say, merely because a student has penned them.
What if every kid wrote ten pages on their idea of God, could they compel the school to publish it? What if every kid collected a compilation of their favorite 100 page plus essays on God, could they compel the school to publish them?
There is a long-standing legal precident against “compelled speech”. Why does this situation not fall under “compelled speech”?
Actually, as long as we can have daily prayers to satan in public school, I’m cool with it. It’s the “free speech for me, but not for thee” stuff that irks me more than the prayer in school fight.
Comment by: Stephan
13 08/30/07 7:08 PM | Comment Link |If you’re trying to spread the good news that atheists are decent, good people, you’re failing miserably. This is just reactionary and hateful.
Has something else happened lately that has made you mad at the world? You’ve been more negative lately than I remember you being.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
14 08/30/07 7:19 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, Siamang mentioned one thing in a comment on another thread - Skeptigator’s comment on here (#33) and the failure of Christians to show any empathy.
Comment by: Laura M.
15 08/30/07 7:20 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, this isn’t reactionary or hateful, it’s logical and rhetorical.
A moment of silence must be open to all religious beliefs or open to none.
Comment by: Stephan
16 08/30/07 7:35 PM | Comment Link |Helen, I could understand if something actually happened to Siamang, but this was just something that happened to someone else and was posted on a blog. Siamang doesn’t even know if it really happened. That hardly excuses the type of anger he has been showing here.
And Laura, you’re just plain wrong. No one saying they are in favor of
Satanic prayers in school is going to win friends and influence people. If what Siamang really wants is greater acceptance of atheists, he’s gotta do better than this. Maybe on some rhetorical level everything is equal, but in the real world this is just crap. I expect better of Siamang.
Siamang, if what you really want is to find bad things in the world, they’re out there and you will find them. It seems like that is what you are trying to do. You live in southern California and you are getting all worked up about what a couple of far-right fringe Christians are saying in Georgia and Texas. Maybe you need to stay off the web and focus on people close to you for a while.
Comment by: Laura M.
17 08/31/07 2:42 AM | Comment Link |Oh, the irony ;-)
Comment by: Laura M.
18 08/31/07 2:46 AM | Comment Link |Oh, I especially like the irony of this part
Comment by: Mike O
19 08/31/07 5:56 AM | Comment Link |OK, well that took a nasty turn. Let’s veer back.
I understand the background and the supreme court positions and all that. But it just seems to me that people have “learned to be offended” at prayer. And if you have to be taught that something is offensive, it isn’t. Sure, Madalyn Murray O’hair probably really was truly offended by what was happening to little Billy. But the vast majority of people today have been taught to be offended by prayer.
Take the Satanic prayer example … why has there never been satanic prayer in schools? Becuase it really is offensive at the core. People’s initial, gut reaction to the satanic is that it is offensive. You would have to teach people to accept it. Christian prayer (or at least prayer to some benevolent diety), on the other hand, is initally acceptable at the gut level by most people, and you have to be taught to be offended by it. I’m not saying you have to be taught to disagree with it … lots of people don’t buy into it … but you have to be taught to be offended by it.
I guess my point is that if you have to teach people to be offended by something, it’s not offensive.
Another example would be sports team names … Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, etc. Are they offensive? Today we would say yes because we’ve been taught that that’s the right answer, but they’re not. If they were, they would have never been named that. Why don’t we have a team called the New Orleans Niggers? Because that one really is offensive. You don’t have to explain to anyone why they can’t have that name.
Prayer is not offensive, and it never was. Forced prayer may be, however, and it seems like we all agree on that one.
Oh, one more thing, Siamang …
You were probably saying it wrong.
Comment by: cautious
20 08/31/07 7:40 AM | Comment Link |This seems like a weird sense of subjectivity. And on a second read-through, it’s completely …well, wrong is a strong word. Maybe you just said a better thought badly.
Human beings, on both personal and larger social levels, can be indoctrinated (by themselves and/or others) into thinking that activities and thoughts are not offensive, that there are special cases or special circumstances that allow certain people to do a normally bad thing because they have to or simply because they are numerically superior and thus whichever minority that is complaining should just shut up.
Quick and dirty historical example: Slavery has not offended the majority of humans until somewhat recently. People had to be taught that slavery was offensive. Does this mean it wasn’t offensive?
Quick and dirty contemporary example: Our country still treats non-heterosexuals as second-class citizens. People have to be taught that homosexuals are people too, that living in a (metaphorical) closet is offensive. Does this mean it’s not offensive?
More relevant contemporary example: Any particular religion excludes other belief systems from being right. And potentially damns all non-believers to eternal punishment. And it’s highly likely its holy book calls me an idiot for not believing its tales.
But this can’t be offensive, since, it’s religion! And we all know religion has never ever done anything bad. ©
The sports team name analogy agrees with my first point here. White Americans named a lot of sports teams after the Native Americans whom we systematically exterminated and forced migrated. This was a series of decisions by us to treat these people as if they had no rights.
These decisions, if made today, would be deemed genocidal and offensive. Back then, they weren’t, by the vast majority of (our) population who saw the savages as a threat to our nation’s security and destiny. People had to be taught that, yes, destroying other civilizations is offensive. That must mean it’s not offensive.
Comment by: cautious
21 08/31/07 7:47 AM | Comment Link |Oh, and also, to make everything here simpler and maybe calm down some tempers…here’s a simple three step exercise.
1) Take Siamang’s mention of “satan” in posts numbers 8 and 12.
2) Replace that name with the name of a benevolent deity, like, say, Brahma.
3) Realize that his point is still valid because what he wasn’t arguing in favor of praying to Satan. He was arguing that, in America, Christian prayer = good, non-Christian prayer = bad.
Bonus activity: Realize that Siamang sees no difference between someone who talks to Satan versus someone who talks to (some divine name that doesn’t offend Christians). Since they’re both supernatural. And thus …well, fake is such a strong word. Let’s just say “potentially not real”.
Comment by: Stephan
22 08/31/07 8:13 AM | Comment Link |As a Scandinavian American, I am deeply offended by the Minnesota Vikings. Not because they mock my ancestors, but because they stink. I mean, if they’re going to call themselves Vikings I want to see some marauding! Let’s see some pillaging!
Sorry about the nasty turn things took above. I just don’t understand the intensity of Siamangs angst over all of this. I think he is blowing things out of proportion and I want to understand why. He says he is afraid of Christians. I am a Christian. I want to know why he is afraid of me.
Comment by: Mike O
23 08/31/07 8:20 AM | Comment Link |I think this used to be true, but now it would be more accurate to say:
I almost didn’t say “Christian” becuase it’s too specific and would come across as paranoid from a Christian. But I think it’s accurate … I honestly believe prayer of any kind other than Christian is perceived as at least “as step in the right direction (at least it’s not Jesus)” in America today.
Comment by: Mike O
24 08/31/07 8:37 AM | Comment Link |Another thing, one statement made in the original essay that caught my attention was this one …
Combine that with Laura’s comparison of the US to a theocracy like Saudi Arabia. No, we aren’t a theocracy, but the VAST majority of people in America are on board with religious - primarily Christian or Catholic - teaching. How in the world is prayer offensive?? You may as well say 99.5% of the people in america are offensive and just make them, as cautious so eloquently said, STFU.
It’s our culture. You don’t have the right to have everything the way you like it. Think about it … if “nothing offensive” was allowed, nothing at all would be allowed because by the definition you’re using, everything is offensive to someone.
We’re a diverse nation. The majority are for prayer. I’m sorry you’re in the minority. We mean you no harm, You’re choosing to be offended by your own culture. (I’m not talking about forced prayer, I’m talking about mere exposure to prayer.)
Comment by: Laura M.
25 08/31/07 9:04 AM | Comment Link |I’m wondering who this comment is meant for Mike. I don’t recall anyone on this thread mentioning being offended by ‘mere exposure to prayer’. These are the types of stereotypes of atheists that I’ve been complaining (whining) on and on about this past week.
Then I don’t see any of us being in disagreement here…
…other than the continual inaccurate insistence of some that these court cases are mostly being brought about by people who are merely offended, rather than the more accurate admission that most of these cases are clear violations of the civil liberties of the plaintiffs 8-)
Comment by: Siamang
26 08/31/07 9:56 AM | Comment Link |I’m getting a strong vibe of “free speech for me, but not for thee”.
I’m not offended by prayer. I’m offended by double-standards.
Mike O: If the valedectorian is actually and committedly a member of the Church of Satan, does she have a right to speak up at graduation about her faith?
Comment by: Stephan
27 08/31/07 10:07 AM | Comment Link |Siamang, I think your question comes down to community standards. If the valedictorian was an admitted rapist and thought rape was a wonderful thing, they would not be allowed to say that. If the student was advocating racism, sexism or some other negative -ism, they would probably not be allowed to speak, and I think that would be the right choice. Do you?
Being a Satanist is similar. It’s almost universally considered to be a negative thing, not accepted in polite society. As such, I don’t see it as a double standard to limit this type of speech while allowing a Christian to speak. Otherwise, limiting the racist is also a double standard.
Comment by: Siamang
28 08/31/07 10:27 AM | Comment Link |Yes, but on different grounds. The grounds I have for disallowing that speech is that whatever the Valedectorian says on the school’s PA system, behind the school’s podium, in front of a group of people that the school has assembled is in fact the School’s Speech.
If the School wants to say racist stuff, it’s their right (the administrators will likely find themselves out of a job). But the school should not be compelled to say that merely because a student wishes it.
(And I’m using the Supreme Court’s reasoning here, which I agree with.)
I think that WHATEVER the Valedectorian has to say can and should be passed by the school.
If the Valedectorian wants to set up her own PA system after school across the street at the local park, she can say whatever she wants to. She is not being censored, it’s just not the government’s job to set up a ready-made audience for her views.
Nobody here has engaged my legal reasoning and the Supreme Court decision I cite. All I’m hearing is “majority rules” and “community standards”.
What if the majority was wiccans, would that be cool with you? What if the Valedectorian was an atheist, and it was in a liberal neighborhood in Santa Monica where most people are likely to be atheists. Would it be cool for the Valedectorian to read from the darkest pages of Richard Dawkins?
Comment by: Siamang
29 08/31/07 10:47 AM | Comment Link |Stephan, I’m not afraid of you, personally. Don’t worry.
As to the fear, the truth is that right now, I cannot fully articulate it. I think it has to do with my daughter starting pre-school and me not looking forward to what happened to Skeptigator’s son… and thinking it could come at any time.
And I want to prepare her… but I don’t. And I’m afraid that whatever I say to prepare her will make her negative toward religion. And maybe that needs to be okay for now. But it’s a pre-school run by a church (and they’re pretty cool) so I don’t want her spouting anti-religious stuff at her school, because that’s not cool either.
So I feel like I’m sending her to school unarmed against religion… and why exactly? Am I taking this “respect religions of other people” too far when I’m more concerned over her offending others than her being disturbed by others? Shouldn’t I protect my daughter first, and let other people do the same for their kids? If they teach their kids that other people’s beliefs are wrong and they’ll go to hell, why shouldn’t I teach my child the same thing, only minus the eternal torture part?
Anyway, I’m wondering if moderate Christians are allies at all on this, or if this is a fight that atheists have to go it alone on. The thread about Hell on Friendly Christian made me feel it was the latter, as there seemed to be a complete blind-spot to the problem.
There’s a larger part to that question, I’m going to put that off for awhile. It’ll take awhile to answer it more fully, and hopefully in a way that is more introspective.
Comment by: Stephan
30 08/31/07 11:33 AM | Comment Link |Siamang, before answering your questions I would also want to know if the Supreme Court’s opinion goes to speech rather than just the press. I can understand that a school publication done during school hours using school resources could be censored. The student newspaper is an official publication of the school, so it should be controlled by the school.
But speech seems different to me, and more influenced by community standards. I know you don’t like that term, but it is relevant here, I think. I doubt that the Supreme Court would find that censoring a graduation speech because it contained religious language would be acceptable.
Or maybe Mike is right here, that religious speech is starting to fall outside of what is acceptable by community standards. If that is the case, then I think it is proper for Christians to push for what they feel should be their community standards, just as I think it is proper for you to push for your community standards, even if they are at odds with each other.
Comment by: Laura M.
31 08/31/07 11:50 AM | Comment Link |Siamang, it’s certainly within reason for you to be concerned about this as religious discussion does come up from time to time among students while at school.
Near the end of last schoolyear my 7yr old daughter came home upset because an older boy (3rd grader, mixed-age Montessori classroom) told her that she must be a Christian if she believed in God, ’cause (obviously) only Christians believe in God.
Firstly, I was surprised that she was upset because the boy called her a Christian, since I thought she considered herself a Christian! Then I was surprised to find that she:
1)Isn’t a Christian. Apparently she believes in many Gods (?!?) and knows that Christians believe in only one God.
2)She was upset on principle as she thinks there’s nothing at all wrong with being a Christian shelovesjesustoo she just isn’t one ’cause she learns about a lot of other gods when she makes her monthly calendar page for social studies.
3)The boy who thinks only Christians believe in God is wrong and he’s Catholic and thinks everyonewhobelievesingodiscatholic…!!
How do you explain to a 7yr old that yes the boy is wrong about only Christians believing in God and only Catholics believing in God …and Mom isn’t he wrong that Jesus is the only God ever??
How do you answer these questions without being afraid you’re going to get your child and yourself into trouble? This issue has come up from time to time over the years with each of my kids. So far as I know there’s never been a backlash against them or myself from any of my discussions/answers about religious issues.
And this is Dallas, home of the Bushs, so take heart 8-)
And to be fair, this isn’t just a sticky issue for atheists.
Comment by: Mike O
32 08/31/07 11:56 AM | Comment Link |Yes, I suppose. I’m sure I won’t burst into flames. I would not like it, but I wouldn’t run to court over it either. Oh, wait. I would now that I’ve learned that I CAN run to court over it.
I get the point on a legal level. And I don’t believe it should be free speech for me and not for thee. But you’re fighting “the norm,” right or wrong. “The norm” is never offensive. It can’t be or it wouldn’t be the norm.
For those of you with more than one child, are you offended by double standards, too? Or do you treat all your children exactly the same, no matter what, because we wouldn’t want to have a double-standard?
Let’s chew on that for a moment. What civil liberty has been violated? I honestly don’t know. The right to …. what, exactly?
I meant to. I agree with the Supreme court. I question the wisdom of the faculty to not let their star student speak what’s important to the. If the star student is a wiccan, tough beans for me. It’s still a time to honor that person.
As to what if the majority was wiccans/atheist/whatever, yes, that would be cool with me. But that doesn’t mean anything because it’s not the case. It’s easy for me to say yes to that question because it’s not reality.
In Africa or Jamaica or somewhere where that could actually be reality, I seriously doubt that I would be offended. that’s their culture.
Comment by: Laura M.
33 08/31/07 12:01 PM | Comment Link |I agree with Stephan that a graduation speech is student speech and shouldn’t be held as speech representing the school.
However the Supreme Court recently upheld this precedent in the ‘Bong Hits For Jesus’ placard case, which was declared speech, not press, and still within the bounds of the school/district to restrict.
Dissenting justices said that this is a bad precedent and freedom of speech does not stop at the schoolhouse door.
I think it’s bad interpretation and unconstitutional. So does the ACLU. Some day it’ll be knocked down 8-)
Comment by: Mike O
34 08/31/07 12:02 PM | Comment Link |I don’t get the question. Allies with whom? Each other? Atheists?
And what did you mean by “blind spot to the problem?” What problem, free speech? Double-standards? Please clarify, thanks.
Comment by: Laura M.
35 08/31/07 12:02 PM | Comment Link |I think valedictorians should just bring their own sound systems.
Comment by: Stephan
36 08/31/07 12:07 PM | Comment Link |Laura said:
I’m writing this date down.
Comment by: Stephan
37 08/31/07 12:08 PM | Comment Link |Unfortunately we can’t all be A/V geeks.
Comment by: Laura M.
38 08/31/07 12:17 PM | Comment Link |Mike, I’m talking about the right to not be forced into speech (forced/coerced prayer) and the kind of case you described (forced silence). These types of cases make up the majority of religion/prayer cases.
So basically I’m agreeing with you except that you’re under the mistaken opinion that most people are suing just because they are offended by prayer. This isn’t accurate.
I only know of one case, and it’s from here in Dallas, where David Wallace Croft is suing over the ‘moment of silence’. This would fit into the frivolous (IMO) ‘freedom from being offended’ type case you’re complaining about.
This type of case is not typical, it’s rare. That’s because it takes a lot of time, energy and money to sue.
Do you know of many others?
Comment by: Laura M.
39 08/31/07 12:24 PM | Comment Link |LOL Stephan 8-0~
See, I’m not so bad after all. I have principles, so that should count for something.
Comment by: cautious
40 09/1/07 5:27 AM | Comment Link |I honestly believe that when you said
That it didn’t help your statement become any less paranoid.
I honestly believe that Americans, being primarily Christian, simultaneously
a) want other American religious voices to speak up and have a word every so often, especially when it agrees with Christian values/truths
b) want to keep the microphone so that they get the final word on matters.
Almost any religious voice, even the voices of those without religion, can speak truths that Christianity agrees with. If a speaker talks about how all the evidence around us points out that helping other people when they are in need is a good thing for both the giver and receiver of aide, that’s a pretty safe statement, right?
If they throw in a bit at the end about how that help appeases Marduk, whose appeasement should be any rational being’s primary concern …did it suddenly get weird?
Comment by: cautious
41 09/1/07 5:52 AM | Comment Link |I somewhat think that the truth of what is offensive lies somewhere between this strawman and the one you had earlier about how
I think we’re working under completely different definitions of what is “offensive”. For instance you make the statement
Which, when looking at any social norm that has ever changed in human society, makes entirely no sense to me. It was the norm in this country to treat non-whites as not deserving the same rights as whites. Sometimes the norm is horribly offensive and wrong.
What’s the cliche about things being right vs. being popular?
In all truth and honesty, yes, yes I am. A lot of things offend me about American culture.
I thinkHistory shows that the only manner in which minorities can get their rights treated equally in this (or any other) country is to raise up their voices and demand action on issues that we see as injust, and the majority sees as normal.When an atheist challenges school prayer, or moments of silence, or “under God” in the Pledge or “In God we trust” on our money, we aren’t asking for religious people to stop praying, which is unfortunately the way the issue is framed by a lot of Christians in this country. We’re looking out for the separation between church and state. We’re looking out for other religious minorities. We’re trying (…sometimes not so successfully) to see how the two clauses of the First Amendment dealing with religion should deal with modern issues.
I think the Constitution, as written, got it right. I think that this country went too far into exclusionary Christian God territory. I don’t know what the next best step is: should we be trying to cut out religion from government (which annoys Christians to no end) or should we just let “In God we trust” stay where it is and be trying to get government to be more inclusive of religion, including non-religious voices?
Comment by: Stephan
42 09/1/07 6:53 AM | Comment Link |Let me chime in here and agree with cautious (year, write this date down too) about being offended by your own culture. It doesn’t mean the culture is right.
I am deeply offended by the crass commercialism around me. Now, I’m not going to take someone to court over it, but I will refuse to participate in it, and I will encourage my family to shun it.
I am also offended by the way American culture glorifies sex and violence. Again, I’m not going to court, but I will refuse to participate in the way it is portrayed in our culture.
So I think it is ok to be offended by your culture and want it to change. I’m just not sure suing someone is the best way to do it.
Comment by: Siamang
43 09/1/07 9:22 AM | Comment Link |If only our Constitution had codified a seperation of commercialism and state, or a seperation of culture and sex… maybe you’d have standing.
Comment by: Stephan
44 09/1/07 10:07 AM | Comment Link |Sadly our country is based on commercialism, and commercialism is based on sex, so what can you do?
Comment by: cautious
45 09/1/07 7:55 PM | Comment Link |If they outlaw sexy commercials then only outlaws will make beer ads?
Comment by: Brendon
46 09/3/07 2:25 PM | Comment Link |Hellen: just what do you find so offensive about this article???
I though over in “the land of the free,” with the first amendment that everyone loves to discuss, why are Christians so harassed for expressing their beliefs?
Heck, in Zimbabwe where I live we are known to have loads of oppression and little freedom of expression, but no one here would even think of anything like what is discussed in this article.
The writer of this article is merely trying to emphasize the pettiness of these lawsuits, you are an open minded person from what I’ve read on you blog…
Comment by: Stephan
47 09/3/07 5:46 PM | Comment Link |Brendon, my feeling (and I am a Christian) is that the tone of the article was rather condescending - either you agree with the author or you are an idiot. I think there is plenty of room to disagree and still be civil.
For instance, the author says:
This point could be debated rather convincingly. While some of the founders of this country were Christians, others were not, and they went to lengths to leave any mention of Christianity out of our Constitution. Many of our traditions are from Christianity, but I personally do not consider the U.S. a “Christian” nation. The author seems to take that for granted.
Comment by: Mike O
48 09/4/07 2:29 AM | Comment Link |Seems reasonable. Isn’t that what’s happening? Maybe not in the public prayer question, but in general?
I get your point, but “to pray or not to pray” is hardly at the same level as slavery or equal rights.
back to the first thing I quoted from you, I just don’t think the best way to go about it is to remove the rights of the majority in this case. Getting those rights applied equally to the minority? Sure, that may be a valid complaint. But whether someone can or cannot pray in public is the same basic question as stephen brought up … can someone say ANYTHING irreligious, regardless of how sexually or physically offensive it is, and then hide under “freedom of speech”, then so can pray-ers.
I wonder if it comes down to a majority vs minority thing … in an effort to give voice to the minority, we take away voice from the majority.
Comment by: Mike O
49 09/4/07 2:33 AM | Comment Link |Hi, Brendan! I bet you could add some good perspective to this discussion.
How would this play out in Zimbabwe?
How, in your opinion, should the minority handle a perceived wrong by the majority? How should the majority react to a protest by the minority?
Comment by: Siamang
50 09/4/07 9:29 AM | Comment Link |What is amazing to me is that we keep going around and around on this… and you folks don’t seem to grasp the idea of context. Where is this speech given?
We all have freedom of speech. We can all grab our own PA, with our own microphone and our own power, and go to the town square and say stuff. If you say sexual stuff in public on a PA, you will get fined… but not prayers.
You can print whatever you want… some sexual material may get you in trouble with the local ordinances, but no prayer will, just as long as you aren’t printing it with government money.
If you say sexual stuff on the PA at school, they will cut you off. You don’t get free-speech rights when using the School PA, we’ve already addressed that.
So I’d like to ask you, Mike, where IS it where we have this mysterious freedom of speech where people can get up and say sexually offensive stuff, but you aren’t allowed to pray because of the Government?
Specifically tell me, where is this special zone where the Government allows sexually offensive speech, but not prayer?
Comment by: William
51 09/5/07 12:39 PM | Comment Link |Wow, what a great discussion!
Hello all. This is my first time commenting on this site, although I have been reading for a few months now.
I would like to add my two cents for what its worth.
I was raised Baptist but never had any real faith. I became an atheist at 13 years old and I am now 25. I live in Texas (Dallas / Fort Worth area) and I went to high school here. When I was a defensive end on the Trinity High School football team, they had team prayer. I did not participate and they did not press the issue. I was very thankful for this because my parents would not have backed me up because they are religious. I cannot and would not argue against their right to pray willingly. I think it is silly and pointless, but I am not offended if it done tactfully and with no expectation for me to be included.
Mike said: “But you’re fighting “the norm,” right or wrong. “The norm” is never offensive. It can’t be or it wouldn’t be the norm.”
I just find it disturbing that anyone can say that the “norm” is never offensive. This is a very wrong and dangerous assumption. People by their very nature can be very bigoted and intolerant and this is very much the “norm”. Just because most people are on board with it, does not mean it not offensive. That statement should be closely examined. I think you would not say this if your view ever ceased to become the “norm”.
I also see nothing wrong with wanting these irrational beliefs out of public life. Religion should be personal. That is why I like pagans. They believe that if they let someone know about the specifics of their worship, then it will lose its power. I am actually able to hang out with these people because their is no discussion about selling my soul or any such nonsense. If there is such a thing as a soul, then it belongs to me and no one else.
About the whole Satanism thing. I see no difference. I have looked into their belief system and find it to be no more morally repugnant to me than Christianity or Islam.
People need to be encouraged to think instead of believe. These things are opposites and one leads to discovery, the other to war.
Comment by: William
52 09/5/07 1:26 PM | Comment Link |One more thing: What is so offensive about sex? I noticed this issue being brought up in the comments. I do not get this willing repression at all. What is the deal with this? Are Christians just afraid of it or what? Could someone explain?
I enjoy sex and consider sexuality to be an important part of adult life. To repress it is unhealthy. You should be mature about the whole thing and just enjoy it. There is no shame in it and you do humanity an injustice if you attach shame to this natural act. If you are ashamed of sex, then it is just a self esteem issue on your part and should not be projected onto others.
Comment by: charmaine
53 10/10/07 11:55 AM | Comment Link |i’ve read your discussion, and found it very interesting.i,myself am a satanist but i do not get offended when we are told to pray to god every morning, i just sit quietly and accept that people have differnet religions than me. i would like to point out that fact that satanism does not encourage rape and racism in anyway, as i was offended that someone would think satanists do encourage that stuff. i do not believe the government should take away religion, but i believe we should all learn to respect eachothers beliefs, isnt that afterall, the reason we study religion in school?
i think, as long as no bodies being forced into praying when they dont want to, then everything is ok. i belive everyone is free to do and say as they wish, certain things may get you in trouble with the law, but these laws are there to stop people geting offended or hurt. but then again, is there the arguement of: pray can offend people, so there for it should be illegal? dont you think this is extreme, if you do not belive in that certain religion, then surley hearing words to a god that you dont belive in anyway wont offend you!
Comment by: Laura M.
54 10/15/07 10:27 AM | Comment Link |Charmaine, I agree with you:
It hasn’t been my experience or understanding that very many atheists are offended by prayer.
But no one I know is OK with being forced to do things they disagree with or don’t believe in against their will.
The only form of prayer I find offensive is when people pray for selfish or petty things, or when they pray that harm or difficulty come to others. But I certainly believe in their right to pray , without interference, these types of prayers if they choose to.
Comment by: charmaine
55 10/16/07 1:32 PM | Comment Link |sorry i didnt mean that people should be forced to do things against their will! i was simply saying that if a person does happen to hear another person praying, and they are from a different religion than them, then i do not understand why they should take offence. i know quite a few people who believe that no one should pray in public, personally i disaggree with these people as i belive everyone should have a choice as to what faith they choose. i also believe that a selfish prayer is offensive, but, like you, i would not take their right to pray away just because they pray for such things.
i do not believe all atheists are offended by prayer, but there is a minority that is, i just hope this monority doesnt become larger, as none of us want our freedom of choice taken away.
Comment by: Laura M.
56 10/16/07 9:15 PM | Comment Link |I know what you mean. I feel exactly the same way about it, Charmaine.