Thread: Punished for Atheistic Protest

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm still alive, I just haven't posted in so long because things have been hectic on my end of the Internets, so I haven't been able to post anything in awhile. This is worthy thought.

I was just given a detention for posting atheistic posters in the hallways of the school in protest of a "See You At The Flag Pole" prayer group the school was openly sponsoring.

Guess how many of the SYATFP members were reprimanded for posting prayers over the top of my flyers?

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm still alive, I just haven't posted in so long because things have been hectic on my end of the Internets, so I haven't been able to post anything in awhile. This is worthy thought.

I was just given a detention for posting atheistic posters in the hallways of the school in protest of a "See You At The Flag Pole" prayer group the school was openly sponsoring.

Guess how many of the SYATFP members were reprimanded for posting prayers over the top of my flyers?

such is the ways of these irrational cults, and they think they can do no wrong, religion is evil incarnate, each one of it followers a potential killer, it was Steven Weinberg who said "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I know. Sad isn't it?

On the bright side, the detention won't go on my permanent record.

Are the flag pole people going to pray that your soldiers kill more of the other guys' soldiers?(this one has been successfully answered many times)..... Are they going to pray for war to end? (That prayer has never been successful)

What reason was given for the detention? Are there rules against hangng posters, or perhaps somthing in the wording was inappropriate - aside from the content of course.

Are you at a public school, or a private school?

I was routinely sent to detention for falling asleep in class. I began pinching tea from the instructors' lounge in order to stay awake, and subsequently earned detention for that.

Eventually my mum took me to the doctor, who wrote a note to the effect that my unusual sleep patterns were neurologically based. The detentions stopped. Perhaps if you had a doctor's note saying that you have no control over your atheism, then you'd be given more latitude. It's likely as true as the notion that you do have control over such a thing.

Are there rules against hangng posters, or perhaps somthing in the wording was inappropriate - aside from the content of course.

Are you at a public school, or a private school?

There is a rule about hanging posters-they have to be authorized. Mine weren't, but the flag pole group's response poster were not. The thinly veiled allusion here is that I was punished for atheism. The student handbook says that the hanging of unauthorized posters results in the loss of poster hanging priveleges for a semester. Nothing about detentions. None of the SYATFP people were punished for hanging unauthorized response posters.

Oh, and I go to a public school.

The content of my posters was not inappropriate either. They bore the American Atheist emblem, and above that, a quote from the Baron D'Holbach:

"It is only by dispelling the clouds and phantoms of Religion that we can discover Truth, Reason, and Morality."

Unable to come up with a reason to punish me, they used the poster rule to give me a detention. They might as well have written "Atheism" on the infraction descriptor line.

I just got a call from some of my atheist counter-parts, some twenty students in all. Their going to try and repost me posters in the hallways. With or without permission.

W007!

You are whining because you were punished for hanging unauthorized posters? Call the whambulance.

The test, then, is for you to hang atheist posters over religious posters. Preferably over unauthorised religious posters.

Have your atheist friends hang unauthorised religious posters, and hang unauthorised atheist posters over those. This would tease out whether the instructors had an anti-atheist bias or not.

It would be better, if you have any religious friends, to have a religious friend hang an unauthorised religious poster, proceed as above, etc etc. Be sure there is nothing provocative in the atheist poster (no images of Satan, for example. )

Have you requested permission to hang your own posters or are you just trying to be disruptive?

I'm not being disruptive, and I'm not whining about hanging posters. I'm expressing anger that the school punished me for atheism. Although, you do raise a good idea radical. I do have a number of relgious friends, though I doubt they would recieve a detention for unauthorized religious posters.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

I'm not being disruptive, and I'm not whining about hanging posters. I'm expressing anger that the school punished me for atheism. Although, you do raise a good idea radical. I do have a number of relgious friends, though I doubt they would recieve a detention for unauthorized religious posters.

You were pundished because you provoked a confrontation, because you could not stand the idea of people meeting by the flagpole to pray. You are the one who is intolerant, not they. Go and do things according to the rules, hang your posters, whatever. Then come back and whine if you are turned down.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You were pundished because you provoked a confrontation, because you could not stand the idea of people meeting by the flagpole to pray.

Harold, perhaps you're not too busy acting like the older and "wiser" counterpart to listen to some reason. While I partially agree with your attacks on his character, I do not agree with your interpretation.

There is hypocrisy that exists here. Religious groups are generally not punished for provoking confrontation, since it's their "religious right" to voice their views. Especially since it's difficult to punish a group.

Since an atheist isn't a religion, it is exempt from constitutional protection. If you punish a single theist, they'll raise hell and probably get you in trouble. Punishing a single atheist isn't a problem.

Although, still, authorization would've been wise. The above is on the assumption neither group asked authorization.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

I'm not being disruptive, and I'm not whining about hanging posters. I'm expressing anger that the school punished me for atheism. Although, you do raise a good idea radical. I do have a number of relgious friends, though I doubt they would recieve a detention for unauthorized religious posters.

You were pundished because you provoked a confrontation, because you could not stand the idea of people meeting by the flagpole to pray. You are the one who is intolerant, not they. Go and do things according to the rules, hang your posters, whatever. Then come back and whine if you are turned down.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

There is a rule about hanging posters-they have to be authorized. Mine weren't, but the flag pole group's response poster were not. The thinly veiled allusion here is that I was punished for atheism. The student handbook says that the hanging of unauthorized posters results in the loss of poster hanging priveleges for a semester. Nothing about detentions. None of the SYATFP people were punished for hanging unauthorized response posters.

The religious had no authorization for posting their posters, so I think Swordsmith proved a good point.

[quote="Obviously"]

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The religious had no authorization for posting their posters, so I think Swordsmith proved a good point.

No, that's not what he said. Their "response" posters were not authorized. Meaning after Swordsmith had started the pissing contest, somebody reacted to it by defacing his unauthorized posters, for which Swordsmith thinks they were unfairly let off the hook. Well, the next time you are pulled over for speeding try telling the cop the car ahead of you was going just as fast. See how far that gets you.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

I'm not being disruptive, and I'm not whining about hanging posters. I'm expressing anger that the school punished me for atheism. Although, you do raise a good idea radical. I do have a number of relgious friends, though I doubt they would recieve a detention for unauthorized religious posters.

i TOTALLY agree (although I think you could have been more subtle and hidden your postering under a veil of doing some good, as the Christians scam it)..... Its double standards!!! Equally, though, military posters seem to have an immunity to opposition of their canvasing of developing minds.

[quote="Harold14370"]

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The religious had no authorization for posting their posters, so I think Swordsmith proved a good point.

No, that's not what he said. Their "response" posters were not authorized. Meaning after Swordsmith had started the pissing contest, somebody reacted to it by defacing his unauthorized posters, for which Swordsmith thinks they were unfairly let off the hook. Well, the next time you are pulled over for speeding try telling the cop the car ahead of you was going just as fast. See how far that gets you.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. (It does happen). But the religious posted responses without authorization and got away with it. So they got "special treatment", and that's not fair.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You are whining because you were punished for hanging unauthorized posters? Call the whambulance.

They punished him for hanging up unauthorized atheist posters, but didn’t punish the theists for hanging religious posters. That’s selective enforcement, which is generally considered a form of overt discrimination. It would almost certainly be illegal for them to formally grant permission to the theists to hang their posters but deny the atheists permission. Punishing the atheists for hanging posters without permission but looking the other way when the theists do it is just as bad.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

I was just given a detention for posting atheistic posters in the hallways of the school in protest of a "See You At The Flag Pole" prayer group the school was openly sponsoring.

Guess how many of the SYATFP members were reprimanded for posting prayers over the top of my flyers?

My advice is the sue the school. Seriously. I know many people here will probably say that it would be a massive over-reaction, but it’s the only way to let this sort of petty administrator know that you take your rights to religious freedom seriously. Far too many school administrators don’t take separation of church and state seriously, which is completely unacceptable. You need to set them straight. Find out the contact information for your school board’s legal team (they are almost guaranteed to have one) and send them a certified letter (only costs a few dollars, and it will signal to the school’s lawyers that you’re serious) telling them that you intend to sue them for civil rights violations unless your punishment is reversed and you receive a formal, written apology from the people who gave you the punishment.

Wait, I have a question. _DID_ that religious group even have official authorization? If not, then Harold just made a fool of himself. So please tell me they didn't.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Wait, I have a question. _DID_ that religious group even have official authorization? If not, then Harold just made a fool of himself. So please tell me they didn't.

I believe he already said in a previous post that they didn't...

Let's look at this from a neutral stance, here:

Swordsmith posted apparently provocative, unauthorized posters.

Some religious person posted unauthorized posters in a heated reply.


There are two possible reasons why the religious people were let off the hook here:

1. They were seen as reacting naturally to being provoked (usually people who are provoked get off the hook).

2. They were religious and thus got "special treatment".

The reason for assumption of the latter is more than likely due to the fact that atheists are usually treated rather unfairly. But let's consider this: is that really a good reason to assume the latter?

Another question to ask is whether SM was right in posting unauthorized, provocative posters in the first place.

The fact remains that there shouldnt be one rule for one and one rule for another.

If he is punished for unauthorized postering, the bible bashers should also be punished.

Why are religious nuts deemed better and more important than a student and future generation, and thus immune?

Maybe its because your country is different, but here in England we will feel wronged by this.

What seems most egregious is that the stated disciplinary action for posting unauthorised posters is loss of poster priviliges for one term. Yet, the discipline used was detention, which is not listed in the handbook.

Swordsmith, are you considered a troublemaker, generally speaking, by the instructors at your school?

By the sound of it he would probably be classified a trouble maker by virtue of speaking his mind against the majority (and therefore expected thought-pattern).

Wow, some of you folks are really rabid. You want to sue the school for what? Swordsmith says they were "openly sponsoring" a prayer group. But what did this sponsorship actually consist of and was it really a prayer ceremony or some non-sectarian memorial? We don't really know anything because Swordsmith didn't say..

SS is complaining like a tattletaie that some other students were not punished like he was for "posting prayers over the top of my flyers." What did this consist of? Maybe just writing on his unauthorized atheist leaflets? Not the same as putting up new posters. And were these other students even identified?

The idea that a school has to have a written rule and specified punishment to cover every infraction is ridiculous. Let's suppose they let SS get away with plastering the school with atheist propaganda. How would that be acceptable if the religious cannot put their religious tracts up all over the school? I think SS got off easy.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The idea that a school has to have a written rule and specified punishment to cover every infraction is ridiculous.

Well, with that attitude, who needs laws?? If they put out rules, they themselves have to obey them or else this is just faschism. And if there is a behaviour that was not covered in the rules, well then there's no punishment. It's as simple as that.
If you think it's cool to punish someone just because he's consdidered a trouble maker with no grounds for punishment, why don't we leave it to the LEOs to punish people as they please. My Buddy get's a warning for going 85 in a 30-zone, that asshole I do not like get's a bullet in the head for not stopping at a stop sign.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Let's suppose they let SS get away with plastering the school with atheist propaganda. How would that be acceptable if the religious cannot put their religious tracts up all over the school? I think SS got off easy.

So two wrongs make a right or what??
If I do not like how my neighbors behave I take a truck full of manure and pump it right in their living room. Hey, they got off pretty easy!!

And for someone comming from the Land of Lawyers and Libellous Lawsuits you're preety up in arms about the idea of suing a school. Geeesus H. Christ, your's is the country where a JUDGE sues a laundry service for ..........and now we aaaaaallll take a deep breath and relax: Friggin' 54 MILLION George Washingtons for a lost pair of pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Swordsmith
Why don't you and your atheist buddies get a permission to hang posters calling for a meeting to pray "The atheists prayer" next to the flag pole too. Beat them with their own methóds. If your principal sticks to his own rules, there should be no problem getting the permission. After all it's the same law for all the students.

Can't you post the part of the constitution that is the foundation for separation of church and state?

Thanks

(ps not links plz. just the actual part.)

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Can't you post the part of the constitution that is the foundation for separation of church and state?

Thanks

(ps not links plz. just the actual part.)

cut and pasted for your benefit no links shown ok.
The American Revolution led to a significant separation between church and state. Increasingly, religion was thought to be a matter of personal opinion that should not be dictated by government. Of the nine states thllat had established religions during the colonial period, three separated church and state in their new constitutions-New fYork, North (Carolina, and Virginia. In the remaining six
states, concessions were made allowinlg public support of more than one church. Often in New England, this concession was nominal because public fuinds would be given to only one church in a town, and that alway's happened to be the (Congregational church because of its dominance in every New England town.

The separation of church and state is a fundamental precept of this nation, articulated in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
Throughout our history, religious groups and those who defined themselves primarily by their religious beliefs have also helped to shape the American story.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Can't you post the part of the constitution that is the foundation for separation of church and state?

Thanks

(ps not links plz. just the actual part.)

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the sum total of what the US Constitution says about separation of church and state. It prevents the federal govt from establishing a national religion, such as the Church of England. Everything else is just creative interpretation.

I dont know about these yank amendments and bills of rights, but in England there is a thing called freedom of speech. First off, SwordSmith shouldnt have been punished for exercising his freedom of speech! Secondly: He shouldnt have been discriminated against for being a minority!

Only a programmed mind of group mentality could fail to see the hypocrisy here.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Wow, some of you folks are really rabid.

Yeah, it's probably fair to say that I'm pretty rabid about my religious freedoms.

You want to sue the school for what?

It is a violation of his civil rights for the school to allow theists to post religious messages but not allow him to post atheist messages. I agree that a lawsuit seems kind of extreme, but unfortunately sometimes extreme measures are the only way to let people know that you are serious about having your civil rights respected. Many petty school administrators seem to forget that they are agents of the government, with all the constitutional responsibilities that such a position entails. Worse, many school administrators actively oppose separation of church and state and decide to ignore it even though they are aware of it. It's important for people to insist that the government (and don't kid yourself, SS's public school is the government) respect their civil rights.

i think we're seeing a bit of escalation of retribution.

the psychology is as follows:

if someone retributes unfairly(escalation of retribution), we should be allowed to retribute unfairly as well (further escalation of retribution)

1. a poster is posted, which seems to have angered some religious people
2. the retribution is too harsh, a ban from making posters would be appropriate, detention is inappropriate, and an escalation of retribution.
this of course is relative to the person in question.
3.by logic, because of this unjust punishment, we should be allowed to unjustly punish as well. but in order to unjustly punish, we have to further escalate our retribution, so a lawsuit seems like an appropriately escalated unjust retribution.

yay! i feel teh smartz now.
tell me if this is pish-posh, or if my theory has some foundation in reality please.

I'd hate to see your theory applied in a war!

No one is even considering this scenario:

1. They were seen as reacting naturally to being provoked (usually people who are provoked get off the hook).

What if this were non-atheist propaganda (say conservative propaganda) being plastered all over the school walls, and a couple of liberals, out of anger at the obviously provocative literature, put up an ad for a liberal meeting outside of school.

The conservative gets detention.
The liberal(s) (probably not even identified) get off.

Would you be reacting in the same way? Would you see this as so unjust that the conservative ought to sue the school?

Let's not make emotions mess up our rationality.

Well, with that attitude, who needs laws??

We are talking about a school, not some legal system. Do you think the school has a set of law books to cover any possible way a student could misbehave and a specific punishment for each? Maybe you think there should be a jury trial before you can give somebody detention.

I dont know about these yank amendments and bills of rights, but in England there is a thing called freedom of speech.

In England you are allowed to post signs all over public buildings in the name of freedom of speech? I doubt that.

Many petty school administrators seem to forget that they are agents of the government, with all the constitutional responsibilities that such a position entails.

And you assume that's what happened in this case even though you only heard one very biased version of the story.

i think we're seeing a bit of escalation of retribution.

Come on, the kid was given detention, not boiled in oil.

Pur youself in the place of the principal. He only suspends Swordsmith's posting privileges, nothing further. What do you think happens the next day? Somebody papers the school walls with religious tracts. You can't do anything to that person but suspend their posting privileges. Pretty soon, you've got a propaganda war going on in your school hallways. As a principal, you really didn't do the job.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

In England you are allowed to post signs all over public buildings in the name of freedom of speech? I doubt that.
.

Well if I felt the need to put a similar poster up in University, I wouldnt be punished and probably asked if I wanted to remove it, if anything. I dont live in Nazi Germany though. I didnt know america had become a religious fascist country either, but then again, I guess we are talking biblebelt hicksville here.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Come on, the kid was given detention, not boiled in oil.

Thats not the point. The kid isnt a gun wielding religious intolerant, although if he was my guess is this principle would have cowered.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

In England you are allowed to post signs all over public buildings in the name of freedom of speech?

Since everyone is getting a little hot under the collar on this, I thought I'd inject a smidegeon of levity. In the UK one often sees signs on the walls of derelict buildings, or the screens that surround construction sites, "Bill Posters will be Prosecuted."
The standard response to this is to scrawl underneath, "Bill Posters is innocent."

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

although if he was my guess is this principle would have cowered.

I think the principle would have remained unsullied. The principal, however, may well have cowered.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

And you assume that's what happened in this case even though you only heard one very biased version of the story.

His description of the events is all we have to go on. Obviously everything said here is all contingent on the assumption that what he said is accurate.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

although if he was my guess is this principle would have cowered.

I think the principle would have remained unsullied. The principal, however, may well have cowered.

Yeah I obviously meant principal. We call them "headmaster" or "please sir let me off, I wont do it again"

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Yeah I obviously meant principal. We call them "headmaster" or "please sir let me off, I wont do it again"

I just wanted to take the p*** in an elitist kind of manner.
I had better check, when you say Thames Estuary, are we talking Essex, or Kent. If we are talking Kent, are we talking man of Kent, or Kentish man? I do want to know whom I am insulting. :wink:

....Essex, where only the women where skirts. :wink: Well most of the time they do.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

....Essex, where only the women where skirts. :wink: Well most of the time they do.

At least jock women know that their knickers should be worn up by their waist and not down by their ankles :wink:

Well if detention is not the usual punishment for hanging unauthorized posters, then there's an injustice here. If it is, and the people responsible for the "response" posters did not receive detention either (which they did not) then there's an injustice here. Either way it does seem hard to argue that the OP was fairly punished in comparison to the others.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Well if detention is not the usual punishment for hanging unauthorized posters, then there's an injustice here. If it is, and the people responsible for the "response" posters did not receive detention either (which they did not) then there's an injustice here. Either way it does seem hard to argue that the OP was fairly punished in comparison to the others.

Oh, great. Another conclusion jumper has joined the party. Has it occurred to you that you have only gotten one side of the story, and there may be other provisions in the student handbook besides the one Swordsmith quoted? Has another guilty party been identified as deserving of punishment, or does Swordsmith just think "somebody" other than himself should be punished? Has it occurred to you that the shool administration cannot tolerate material of a religious nature posted around the school, because of the lawsuits filed by militant atheists? Welcome to the world you created.

Since when did god-fearing folk avoid jumping to conclusions? We only have what the kid said to comment on(are you suggesting that his scenario doesn't happen in america). Where did he disappear to anyway?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Has it occurred to you that the school administration cannot tolerate material of a religious nature posted around the school, because of the lawsuits filed by militant atheists?

Have any such lawsuits succeeded?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Has it occurred to you that the shool administration cannot tolerate material of a religious nature posted around the school, because of the lawsuits filed by militant atheists? Welcome to the world you created.

A world where the government doesn't compel me under threat of force to go to a place for eight hours/day, five days/week and endure religious propaganda? Yeah, what a horrible world that would be.

I don't think that they should allow any posters of a religious nature (either theistic or atheistic) in public schools, but if they are going to allow posters for a particular religion, they had damn well better allow posters from atheists (and buddhists, satanists, scientologists, or whoever else wants to join the party).

We are talking about a school, not some legal system. Do you think the school has a set of law books to cover any possible way a student could misbehave and a specific punishment for each? Maybe you think there should be a jury trial before you can give somebody detention.

Mhhmmmmm...and in the school we do not learn for our future life. This is just some institution to stuff facts in your brain, everything else (critcal thinking, tolerance and the other bullshit you do not need for the rest of your life) is useless. The only thing you have to do is elect ANY Republican for President as they know best.

Now there's an interesting fact. Guardian just published the results of a study that the average American trusts atheists less than (and this enumeration is also prrreeeeetty interesting for both Americans and normal human beeings) "homosexuals, Muslims and other minorities".

Yippie......I'm better than you gays, Nananananaaaa!!!!

Has it occurred to you that the shool administration cannot tolerate material of a religious nature posted around the school, because of the lawsuits filed by militant atheists? Welcome to the world you created.

I for my part like living there, thank you and I will tell everybody whether he's a friggin Born Again Christian (The most annoying types. Those convertites, they always have to prove a point ), a Muslim or some other type of delusional theist what I think about Gods and other fairy tales. If they do not like it --> [extends middle finger]FUC* YOU [/extends middle finger]
Oh, and BTW....it's the Creationists and other Buttnuts that sue school districts for NOT teaching that some infinitely powerful beeing did out of sheer boredom create the world as we know it in 7 days. You, Harold are mixing things up here.
And for your information: If I had created this world (see above) I would have take care of some giant nuisances in the first place.

Well if I felt the need to put a similar poster up in University, I wouldnt be punished and probably asked if I wanted to remove it, if anything. I dont live in Nazi Germany though

Would be hard to pull that of. Nazis are more or less extinct there (some of them stil thrive though) and you would not be punished unless you damage something in the process (glue the poster to a historical portal or on some Fresco Painting). Administration is way too busy to do something about Piddledishit like that. It's only the Americans that get their panties in a twist. Sheesh...

Originally Posted by free radical

Have any such lawsuits succeeded?

Yes. In 1962 I transferred from a Catholic school to a public school, and the home room teacher used to read from the Bible before each day's classes. I recall that the text was from a Protestant Bible and the words were a little different than I was used to. Nobody got their panties in a bunch over it in our school that I knew of. Nobody was forced to pray or asked to join any other church.

This was about the time that Madalyn Murray won her lawsuit, and the school prayer stopped the next year after that. It seems that Madalyn's poor atheist dears were made to feel uncomfortable by the school prayer. Since then there has been a court ruling that schools cannot hang a copy of the 10 commandments anywhere on the school premises. There were probably a lot of other similar rulings that I don't specifically remember.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

This was about the time that Madalyn Murray won her lawsuit, and the school prayer stopped the next year after that.

Now I am more confused than before. Are you saying that prayer in school is illegal?

From the opening post:

I was just given a detention for posting <snip> in protest of a "See You At The Flag Pole" prayer group the school was openly sponsoring.

Thank you for your time, Harold.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

A world where the government doesn't compel me under threat of force to go to a place for eight hours/day, five days/week and endure religious propaganda? Yeah, what a horrible world that would be.

The decision to give swordsmith detention probably deterred swordsmith and others from posting their opinions regarding the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being. In this way, many students were spared the unconstitutional horror of being exposed to such opinions on their legally mandated strolls through the halls of academe. This decision should have pleased you, but somehow I sense that it didn't.

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by Harold14370

This was about the time that Madalyn Murray won her lawsuit, and the school prayer stopped the next year after that.

Now I am more confused than before. Are you saying that prayer in school is illegal?

From the opening post:

I was just given a detention for posting <snip> in protest of a "See You At The Flag Pole" prayer group the school was openly sponsoring.

Thank you for your time, Harold.

There is nothing illegal about individuals or student groups praying at school on their own initiative. It just cannot be run by the school.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

A world where the government doesn't compel me under threat of force to go to a place for eight hours/day, five days/week and endure religious propaganda? Yeah, what a horrible world that would be.

The decision to give swordsmith detention probably deterred swordsmith and others from posting their opinions regarding the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being. In this way, many students were spared the unconstitutional horror of being exposed to such opinions on their legally mandated strolls through the halls of academe. This decision should have pleased you, but somehow I sense that it didn't.

Hypocrisy abounds!

I've been meaning to post for awhile in this thread, but things are getting crazy with my after-school schedule, the academic games season is starting up, and I've been at practice most every day.

I'll try to responde to everything that Harlod said because:

a) He's the only one who doesn't see a problem with the punishment

and

b) He seems to think I'm at fault here.

Okay.

Well, you brought up the point that the school can't tolerate religious material posted in the hallways.

Funny, considering the SYATP groups posters were permitted by the school

I was unaware of the provsion in the handbook that stated unauthorized posters resulted in the loss of poster privileges.

From the handbook, verbatim:

". . . Unauthorized posters placed in the halls by students are immediately removed, and the student who placed them is subject to immediate loss of his/her poster rights for the duration of the semester."

Notice, NOTHING was said about a detention. While the SYATP posters were authorized, their response poster never recieved permission, and all of them were removed from the halls within an hour of their posting. EVERY SINGLE RESPONSE POSTER was verbally aggressive. Mine were not. I recieved these four response posters on my locker door:

"Jesus shall spare the believers and take them into heaven. Those who do not except Christ shall suffer eternal damnation."

"Accept Jesus, and your soul will be saved."

"God must exist, for you not to believe in him."

And, my personal favorite:

"Jesus will awash the world in the blood of nonbelievers."

Only the second and third are even reasonably polite. The others are quite obviously rather abusive.

Upon my complaint of the detention, and the violent response posters I furnished to the office to show that I was being verbally abused, I was told the SYTAP members responsible would recieve detentions for the way their posters were abusive. Funnily enough, they never have. Infact, none of the SYATP members responsible for the posters even lost their poster hanging priveleges.

Now Harold, perhaps you can understand my anger for maltreatment. If you don't, then I don't think it pertinent to even waste time typing further responses to you.

Anyway, an update on the situation:

Following a protest at the last student advisory council meeting, (lead by myself and backed by twelve other atheist students) we succeded in disbanding the SYTAP group, due to its school sponsorship. The group will be up for a second consideration by school officials, allowing only that the students meet at the flag pole for their prayer ceremony before school starts, and that no teacher participates. Which is the only thing I and the other atheist students wanted in the first place.

Also, my friend Kevin are going to begin work on an atheist group in the school for students of like minds to meet. And yes, it would meet after school, with no teacher sponsorship. Why would we hold double standards for ourselves when we already saw that double standards lead to unfair treatment.

I don't think I can make it anymore clear to you. If you STILL think I'm in the wrong for being upset. . . then I don't think any further responses are necessary.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

"Jesus shall spare the believers and take them into heaven. Those who do not except Christ shall suffer eternal damnation."

"Accept Jesus, and your soul will be saved."

"God must exist, for you not to believe in him."

And, my personal favorite:

"Jesus will awash the world in the blood of nonbelievers."

Crude and morally reprehensible.

Exactly. It's funny that they say I'm the immoral one for being an atheist.

I missed this one somehow.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

Well, you brought up the point that the school can't tolerate religious material posted in the hallways.

Funny, considering the SYATP groups posters were permitted by the school

What did the posters actually say?

From the handbook, verbatim:

". . . Unauthorized posters placed in the halls by students are immediately removed, and the student who placed them is subject to immediate loss of his/her poster rights for the duration of the semester."

Notice, NOTHING was said about a detention.

I was thinking along the lines there is probably something that allows the school administration to increase penalties for flagrant violations, aggravating circumstances or stuff that is not specifically in the handbook. And, we still only have your side of the story.

I recieved these four response posters on my locker door:

"Jesus shall spare the believers and take them into heaven. Those who do not except Christ shall suffer eternal damnation."

You don't believe in eternal damnation so why does this bother you?

"Accept Jesus, and your soul will be saved."

This is violent?

"God must exist, for you not to believe in him."

And, my personal favorite:

"Jesus will awash the world in the blood of nonbelievers."

Again, you don't believe this so what is the big deal?

Only the second and third are even reasonably polite. The others are quite obviously rather abusive.

You have apparently led a sheltered life.

Upon my complaint of the detention, and the violent response posters I furnished to the office to show that I was being verbally abused, I was told the SYTAP members responsible would recieve detentions for the way their posters were abusive. Funnily enough, they never have. Infact, none of the SYATP members responsible for the posters even lost their poster hanging priveleges.

Tattletale. Did you also rat out the guilty parties because if not they might not know whom to punish.

Following a protest at the last student advisory council meeting, (lead by myself and backed by twelve other atheist students) we succeded in disbanding the SYTAP group, due to its school sponsorship.

Congratulations, but what have you really accomplished other than screwing with your classmates. Take a look around and try to figure what the real threats are to your religious freedom. It's not going to come from a few of your classmates wanting to pray by the flagpole. That shouldn't have been any skin off your ass.

Saying that a teacher CAN'T participate is a violation of their civil rights. And if you don't believe, why target those who do. Is hypocracy here considered in only one direction?

Immoral does not equal athiests. I have athiest friends who are pretty good folks. Even more upstanding than some of my friends who claim Christianity.

No one was forcing you to pray. Why do you consider the cancellation of the SYATP group a victory when your primary issue should have been with the school itself?

I apologize to you and to anyone else who "christians" have attacked. The love of Christ should be the most visable part of a Christians life. If it is not I would question weather or not they are really a Christian or simply claim the name because of upbringing, peer issues, etc.

Making a law that limits the free exercise there of... teachers can't pray at the SYATP rally... any problems with that?

I wonder at what point a line is crossed crossed for even the most tolerant of people.

Would non-school-sponsored satanic worship at school be tolerable, provided no laws were broken?

/begin slightly on-topic rant. You probably wont want to read it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Now a poster ALMOST made a complete realization of our moronic society.

Not only are some things illogically taboo, like satanism, but there are LAWS BEING MADE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL BASIS.

A perfect prime example is the age of consent. Most peoples brains are developed suitably by age 16 at the most. And some gifted people are even younger (rarely before puberty, I doubt that).

Our society makes generalizations based on good publicity. If any of you think there is some brainwork behind some of these retarded laws, taboos, and social rules, then you're living in fantasy worlds. Even worse is that most of us have them brainwashed into us by our backwards culture. UNGH!

/end slightly off-topic rant. Don't you love wasting your time?

I say sue the school system and bring them to supreme court for a settlement of $5,000,000, then use that money to pay all of your local networks to play an Atheist commercial, 24/7 on every channel, for a month.

That will put it to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, I also have to deal with these religious morons attacking me at my school. I say ^&*&$^%$!!@$ them, regardless of how people threaten me, I will never change my ways.

Originally Posted by Cold Fusion

I say sue the school system and bring them to supreme court for a settlement of $5,000,000, then use that money to pay all of your local networks to play an Atheist commercial, 24/7 on every channel, for a month.

That will put it to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, I also have to deal with these religious morons attacking me at my school. I say ^&*&$^%$!!@$ them, regardless of how people threaten me, I will never change my ways.

This case wouldn't make it anywhere. It's so laughable that it's not even funny (intentional paradox).

The post was intended to be comical. I wasn't serious. You think this could go anywhere with likely almost everyone involved with the case being religious? The jury, judge, lawyers, everyone. Unless there was profound evidence and what the id...religious people did was appalling, and you had GOOD atheist lawyers, then it would be very hard to win.