Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Moment of Silence

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:06:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the United States, school-established prayer has been banned by the Supreme Court.

Some schools have done something else instead: to hold a "moment of silence". Students may spend this time to pray silently or to silently reflect upon whatever the crap they want. Do you find the Moment of Silence to be a violation of the constitution? Both sides please defend your answer.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:24:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the moment of silence is the perfect solution. Schools shouldn't force prayer down the throats of children who may not even believe, but a moment of silence allows for personal prayer from all faiths and if not that at least some sort of reflection.

I went to a pretty large public school and we had a moment of silence each day. I can't imagine an argument for a moment of silence being unconstitutional. At big events like graduation we also had student led prayers that weren't explicitly Christian but definitely abrahamic (they invoked God the father). Nobody complained as far as I know although more than a few people kind of rolled their eyes. I'm not sure what the law is for student led prayer at events like that but considering the Supreme Court allows Texas to have the Ten Commandments on its front lawn, I doubt it would find student led prayer unconstitutional.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:27:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 12:24:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
I think the moment of silence is the perfect solution. Schools shouldn't force prayer down the throats of children who may not even believe, but a moment of silence allows for personal prayer from all faiths and if not that at least some sort of reflection.

I went to a pretty large public school and we had a moment of silence each day. I can't imagine an argument for a moment of silence being unconstitutional. At big events like graduation we also had student led prayers that weren't explicitly Christian but definitely abrahamic (they invoked God the father). Nobody complained as far as I know although more than a few people kind of rolled their eyes. I'm not sure what the law is for student led prayer at events like that but considering the Supreme Court allows Texas to have the Ten Commandments on its front lawn, I doubt it would find student led prayer unconstitutional.

Basically the people being like "they kicked prayer out of school!!!1!1!1" are just wrong and dumb. There was the moment of silence, and student led prayers, and now that I'm thinking about it there was even a room designated for students who wanted to prayer throughout the day (usually devout Muslims but anyone could use it). And it's like why SHOULD the school kids say the Lord's Prayer or whatever every day? It's school, not church.

But the people complaining about God being in the pledge need to go away. There's nothing wrong with acts of symbolic deism to add an air of legitimacy to things--the great seal of the U.S. has the all seeing eye on it to represent God.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:57:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For public schools, they should not be leading prayers. I don't care if students pray on their own - that doesn't violate the separation of church and state.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:28:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But the people complaining about God being in the pledge need to go away. There's nothing wrong with acts of symbolic deism to add an air of legitimacy to things--the great seal of the U.S. has the all seeing eye on it to represent God.

God with a capital g generally refers to the Judeo-christian god. Having it in the pledge seems to acknowledge that at least some specific god of a monotheistic religion exists in a deist sense, if not a theist one. The eye is questionable for similar reasons, although it has meaning in several religions.

Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:54:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 2:28:57 AM, DisKamper wrote:
But the people complaining about God being in the pledge need to go away. There's nothing wrong with acts of symbolic deism to add an air of legitimacy to things--the great seal of the U.S. has the all seeing eye on it to represent God.

God with a capital g generally refers to the Judeo-christian god. Having it in the pledge seems to acknowledge that at least some specific god of a monotheistic religion exists in a deist sense, if not a theist one. The eye is questionable for similar reasons, although it has meaning in several religions.

Boo hoo. It's an act of symbolic deism--if you actually have an issue with invoking a generic God or an eye symbolizing providence on the great seal you need to chill out, lol. I get it, though--atheism is your religion and you want to fight for it. Unfortunately for you, there's no strict separation of church and state in the constitution but instead the government is just prohibited from establishing a church. The invocation of a generic God just for symbolic appeal to the pledge is not establishing a church.

Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.

The governments legitimacy comes from the fact the the US government is the most recent military victor in the territory that is the United States. Any explanation otherwise is hippie babble that relies on just as much faith as religion--probably more since we have boundless evidence against the really stupid idea that the government is governed for/by the people and legitimized by them.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 5:00:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Boo hoo. It's an act of symbolic deism--if you actually have an issue with invoking a generic God or an eye symbolizing providence on the great seal you need to chill out, lol.

Yes, I see what you mean- it's supposed to be generic. The issue is that it is not generic. In in a nation where most people were polytheists, we may see many eyes instead of one and instead of "under God" we may see "under Gods". In a nation where most people were atheists, these symbols would not even exist. It's hardly generic. You're right though- this isn't a big deal especially considering that we can't get much more generic than what we have.

I get it, though--atheism is your religion and you want to fight for it. Unfortunately for you, there's no strict separation of church and state in the constitution but instead the government is just prohibited from establishing a church. The invocation of a generic God just for symbolic appeal to the pledge is not establishing a church.

Perhaps the separation should be more strict.

Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.

The governments legitimacy comes from the fact the the US government is the most recent military victor in the territory that is the United States. Any explanation otherwise is hippie babble that relies on just as much faith as religion--probably more since we have boundless evidence against the really stupid idea that the government is governed for/by the people and legitimized by them.

True, the only real thing that legitimizes government is military might. Then could the US not go the way of Angola and Saudi Arabia and make weapons a national symbol of legitimacy? This would be more valid than an eye as a symbol of legitimacy, right?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:18:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 5:00:19 PM, DisKamper wrote:
Boo hoo. It's an act of symbolic deism--if you actually have an issue with invoking a generic God or an eye symbolizing providence on the great seal you need to chill out, lol.

Yes, I see what you mean- it's supposed to be generic. The issue is that it is not generic. In in a nation where most people were polytheists, we may see many eyes instead of one and instead of "under God" we may see "under Gods". In a nation where most people were atheists, these symbols would not even exist. It's hardly generic. You're right though- this isn't a big deal especially considering that we can't get much more generic than what we have.

It's not even slightly a big deal--that's what makes it so irritating when easily butthurt internet atheists try to make it into a thing. These are the same people who force grieving mothers to take down little roadside crosses to mark where their children died--I really don't care about saying "under God" in the pledge (like anyone takes the pledge seriously anyway) as much as I just get irritated when I see people making mountains out of molehills. On the bright side, it allows for some top level trolling


I get it, though--atheism is your religion and you want to fight for it. Unfortunately for you, there's no strict separation of church and state in the constitution but instead the government is just prohibited from establishing a church. The invocation of a generic God just for symbolic appeal to the pledge is not establishing a church.

Perhaps the separation should be more strict.

It should probably be a little more strict--I don't think states should be allowed to have monuments of the Ten Commandments in their capitols front lawns for instance, but I think if we get to the point where the picture of an eye on the great seal violates separation of church and state we've gone way too far.


Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.

The governments legitimacy comes from the fact the the US government is the most recent military victor in the territory that is the United States. Any explanation otherwise is hippie babble that relies on just as much faith as religion--probably more since we have boundless evidence against the really stupid idea that the government is governed for/by the people and legitimized by them.

True, the only real thing that legitimizes government is military might. Then could the US not go the way of Angola and Saudi Arabia and make weapons a national symbol of legitimacy? This would be more valid than an eye as a symbol of legitimacy, right?

That would be pretty cool, I have to admit. Given our cultures worship of firearms we essentially already do. I don't think that the eye is a really appropriate representation of sovereignty because nothing except military might is--but damnit if it doesn't look cool.

That might be the best argument I've ever made. We shouldn't change the great seal because if we're being honest the creepy all seeing eye is cool af
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 8:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's not even slightly a big deal--that's what makes it so irritating when easily butthurt internet atheists try to make it into a thing. These are the same people who force grieving mothers to take down little roadside crosses to mark where their children died--I really don't care about saying "under God" in the pledge (like anyone takes the pledge seriously anyway) as much as I just get irritated when I see people making mountains out of molehills. On the bright side, it allows for some top level trolling

Yes, it is annoying when people get really angry over things that have little impact on their lives. Obviously roadside crosses are not an issue- but the people defend their right to place roadside crosses need to realize that roadside crescents are also not an issue.

Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.

The governments legitimacy comes from the fact the the US government is the most recent military victor in the territory that is the United States. Any explanation otherwise is hippie babble that relies on just as much faith as religion--probably more since we have boundless evidence against the really stupid idea that the government is governed for/by the people and legitimized by them.

True, the only real thing that legitimizes government is military might. Then could the US not go the way of Angola and Saudi Arabia and make weapons a national symbol of legitimacy? This would be more valid than an eye as a symbol of legitimacy, right?

That would be pretty cool, I have to admit. Given our cultures worship of firearms we essentially already do. I don't think that the eye is a really appropriate representation of sovereignty because nothing except military might is--but damnit if it doesn't look cool.

That might be the best argument I've ever made. We shouldn't change the great seal because if we're being honest the creepy all seeing eye is cool af

It does look pretty cool. At the end of the day, I suppose it all comes down to aesthetics.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 8:16:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 8:02:49 PM, DisKamper wrote:
It's not even slightly a big deal--that's what makes it so irritating when easily butthurt internet atheists try to make it into a thing. These are the same people who force grieving mothers to take down little roadside crosses to mark where their children died--I really don't care about saying "under God" in the pledge (like anyone takes the pledge seriously anyway) as much as I just get irritated when I see people making mountains out of molehills. On the bright side, it allows for some top level trolling

Yes, it is annoying when people get really angry over things that have little impact on their lives. Obviously roadside crosses are not an issue- but the people defend their right to place roadside crosses need to realize that roadside crescents are also not an issue.

They do. I've never seen anyone freak out about a roadside crescent or something but it probably would happen--and it shouldn't. To try to force a grieving family to bring down a tiny memorial is just beyond asinine and the people who try to force that have no hearts whatsoever. It's one of those things where I can't possibly understand where people are coming from. I suppose it's just the worst kind of identity politics

Plus, I don't think the US needs to be symbolically governed by a divine being. While stating that the people are given certain unalienable rights by a "Creator", founding documents emphasize that the government is created and legitimized by the people- it does not come from a higher power. Indeed, it seems to contradict the independent, self-deterministic spirit of America if what people do needs to be legitimized by a divine power.

The governments legitimacy comes from the fact the the US government is the most recent military victor in the territory that is the United States. Any explanation otherwise is hippie babble that relies on just as much faith as religion--probably more since we have boundless evidence against the really stupid idea that the government is governed for/by the people and legitimized by them.

True, the only real thing that legitimizes government is military might. Then could the US not go the way of Angola and Saudi Arabia and make weapons a national symbol of legitimacy? This would be more valid than an eye as a symbol of legitimacy, right?

That would be pretty cool, I have to admit. Given our cultures worship of firearms we essentially already do. I don't think that the eye is a really appropriate representation of sovereignty because nothing except military might is--but damnit if it doesn't look cool.

That might be the best argument I've ever made. We shouldn't change the great seal because if we're being honest the creepy all seeing eye is cool af

It does look pretty cool. At the end of the day, I suppose it all comes down to aesthetics.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 1:47:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think a moment of silence is a good compromise. Religious students can pray if they choose. Secular students could use the time for a bit of meditation or to think on their studies. But of course most of them will roll their eyes and shoot spitballs when the teacher isn't looking.

I do think that private reflection is healthy for everyone, regardless whether that reflection takes the form of prayer or not.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 12:06:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, school-established prayer has been banned by the Supreme Court.

Some schools have done something else instead: to hold a "moment of silence". Students may spend this time to pray silently or to silently reflect upon whatever the crap they want. Do you find the Moment of Silence to be a violation of the constitution? Both sides please defend your answer.

How on earth is this a stickied thread?
Tsar of DDO
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://preview.images.memegenerator.net...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 3:15:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:22:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 12:06:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, school-established prayer has been banned by the Supreme Court.

Some schools have done something else instead: to hold a "moment of silence". Students may spend this time to pray silently or to silently reflect upon whatever the crap they want. Do you find the Moment of Silence to be a violation of the constitution? Both sides please defend your answer.

How on earth is this a stickied thread?

I have no idea.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid