Ascott: you're welcome!

All: I was inspired by this article and discussion to blog my own new law...hope you enjoy it! ;-)

http://skepticalpoet.blogspot.com/2007/12/caffeine-nap-act.html

terryb, I'll second that: a great new year to you and everyone else here (and elsewhere).

I was just off reading a story about how a bunch of religious fanatics are promoting a boycott of "The Golden Compass." (How's that for timing?)

One of my standing personal jokes: I am fanatically opposed to fanaticism.

Cheers!

ascott, To you, and all of you, have a great new year!
Health and Peace.
not a fanatic atheist, terry. :)

ascott, Good post, You nailed it. Unfortunately, it will probably go right over the head of the dogmatics. most of them have no ears, just mouths.

Seems to me there are abundant "moments of silence" all-day-long in schools, such as when most-students struggle to read-anything -- lips already moving as they silently sound-out multi-syllabic wordings (and most of today's 'none left behind' crop of youthful-Scholars really SHOULD use ALL of them to 'Pray they learn/retain ANYTHING' from this, their so-called Education).
But why should a teacher have to announce any 'special moment' for doing-so?

Woo

A belated 'Thank you.'

Opinionated

It's the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. Did you miss that - or are you hoping that you'll make people forget the last part?

If you look above, I said that when I taught reading, I had my students sit quietly for a minute or two and prepare themselves for the upcoming task. I also said that I had no idea whether any of the students used that time to pray - and that it was none of my business.

Does that truly sound paranoid? Seems to me the paranoia is yours. If you can't get the state to mandate time for the little dears to (reflect or) pray, perhaps they won't bother to pray at all. I know kids: they'll find the time to do what they want. Those who want to do so, will find that there is plenty of time in the school day for prayer.

I found the time to think about all sorts of things in school. I thought quietly going up and down the stairs, at lunch, at breaks between classes. Are you afraid that kids aren't really motivated enough to pray that they would give up a few minutes of conversation with their friends?

Just what kind of meaningful prayer can be accomplished in 15 seconds, anyway? I know it isn't enough time to begin to reflect on anything of importance.

Your crack about atheists never being quiet is telling: the loudest screamers are the fanatics who want to force religion on everyone, everywhere. One can't escape phony religious people and their public displays of supposed piety, yet they are always screaming that we're out to stifle their religious freedoms. Phony victims.

I have no problem with people praying - on their own time, and without support or encouragement from the state. Such support or encouragement is un-American. Read the Constitution.

How you derive the ideas you try to tell us you have from my posts is amazing. Like most publicly 'religious' people, you seem unable to respond to what is actually said, and instead insist upon making the claims you wanted to make anyway. (Not to mention the charges.)

Your response is an inaccurate hodge-podge of non sequiturs, unfounded accusation, and false charges. It displays exactly the kind of illogic that one expects to find in the arguments of fanatics.

You want to insert prayer everywhere. I want it kept where it belongs: in private.

What you see here is an atheist making an argument that the reputed founder of Christianity would (and supposedly did) approve, while the supposed supporters of religion are advocating something that goes against the teachings of both Christianity and Judaism. Now that is more than a little strange.

So I say again, if you cannot see that the legislature was wrong, for a wide variety of reasons, (including that it conflicts with their own religion), then it can only be because you do not wish to see it.

Paranoid? That's an unsophisticated tactic: accuse your 'opponent' of having what in fact are your own short-comings. Go read the bible: if you do so honestly, you'll have to agree that your opinion is misguided.

terryb

Thanks. Unfortunately, you are correct: just reading the original posts and the responses by people like Opinionated, one will see that their 'responses' respond to little or nothing that was actually said.

They just want a forum to spew, and they'll misuse anyone or anything to do it. This is not the first poster I have rebuked for such silliness. Many sites are crawling with such fanatics.

Opinionated's attempts to represent him-herself as other than a religious fanatic rings very hollow to me. The automatic attacks on "fanatical atheists" sounds like something dreamed up by the "war on Christmas" gang.

How do they imagine that anyone or any group could prevent people from praying, anyway? (Have I missed something? Did someone announce the invention of a mind-reading device recently, perhaps while I was distracted by making the morning coffee?) Just claiming that it is someone's agenda to keep people from praying proves that these people can't think clearly. (I suspect that it reflects their own desires to control how everyone thinks.)

Heathen said:
"Religion is a tool for social control. The more controlled a society, the less free are its members. And we here in America are more controlled and less free every day thanks to the religious zealots who are firmly in control.

That's why 15 second a day of "silent reflection" is a bad thing, and why I am opposed to it. If you want your kid to pray, make time for it at home. If you don't want your kid to be forced to pray, fight to eliminate school prayer even when it's behind the facade of a euphemism."

Heathen's post is excellent and I completely agree. Others have posted highly observant comments as well. It is sadly obvious that many people do not understand what is at stake with "moment of silence" laws such as this. Why is such a law even necessary? Why can't a teacher simply have a ten or fifteen minute break called "quiet time, or personal time," or whatever. The law clearly states "prayer," included in it's intent, and once that has been stated, an instructor can certainly interpret it to include religious beliefs, perhaps even slanted towards their own. How will a teacher with Christian evangelical beliefs be capable of remaining unbiased towards students who are agnostic, or of other faiths? Whether or not a child has religious beliefs should never be the focus of any activity at a PUBLIC SCHOOL. What if certain children are uncomfortable praying in a classroom, or others feel they have to join in with their peers, regardless of their true feelings? Religious beliefs should be practiced at home and/or with a religious organization. A moment of silence might sound nice and "new ageish," but that is clearly NOT the intent of laws such as the one in Illinois as well as the other states mentioned. There is nothing innocent about it. BTW, atheists/agnostics are not attempting to proseltyze others or turn this country into a theocracy, which is what is currently being attempted by religious zealots. Why can't the religious extremists stop pushing their agenda on public schools, among other institutions, and worry about all those far more urgent matters affecting this country--like the war in Iraq, etc.??

Chicago Tribune
http://www.isbe.net/news/2007/newsclips/071012.htm#po

Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), who voted against the measure, said the only people who lobbied him on the bill were preachers, priests and rabbis.

"This doesn't mandate school prayer, but let's face it -- that's what this is about," Lang said...

"There are too many things that people are trying to mandate for us, and I think that being allowed to practice our own spirituality when we want to, in our own setting, is more important," said Asayo Horibe, president of the Buddhist Council of the Midwest...

"I'm thinking about a 1st-grade teacher with a room full of students. ... She's going to be wondering 'What exactly am I supposed to be telling these little guys to be thinking about?'" Ryan said.

Other educators questioned lawmakers' priorities, noting that the House, which voted 74-37 to override, has yet to send schools all the money they are entitled to under the recently approved budget.

"We already have the ability to have a moment of silence," said Don Schlomann, superintendent of St. Charles schools.

"I wish they would focus on the things they haven't finished."

Rockford Register Star
http://www.isbe.net/news/2007/newsclips/071012.htm#op

"This is just disruptive," Harlem School District Superintendent Pat DeLuca said. "Schools should have the flexibility to open the school day as they choose. I don't think the state should dictate how we open the school day."

Belvidere School District Superintendent Michael Houselog said legislators had better things to do regarding schools.

"Funding for the schools is the type of legislation we are hoping to get out of Springfield as opposed to legislation like this," Houselog said.

Hononegah School Board President Dave Kurlinkus said the mandatory nature of the law could make some angry.

"I just wonder what the reaction will be when another activity is mandated," he said.

I have no problem with someone in silent prayer. In fact, i encourage it. whatever it takes to make you a good, compassionate person, is wonderful. If that is what works for you, keep it up. There are many paths to humanity and spirituality, and all of them are viable. Opinionated, when exactly are you not permitted the freedom to pray? The problem is that there is a law, that tells you, that you must observe a moment of silence. It is not what you do with that silence that is the point, it is making it a law that makes it a problem. That is not freedom. That is an infringement on it. It's really just that simple. Also, believe it or not, there are some atheists out there, that are every bit of a good person, that have the same degree of morality, love and compassion as any person of faith. There are also fanatics in the christian community. like atheists, not all, but some.

Defending the Constitution is not petty.

I also find it strange that those who would fight against any gun regulations, no matter how logical and common sense and benign (such as registration and bans against military type weapons), because they fear they it would be a "slippery slope" towards banning all guns, would not also fight just as hard against the slippery slope towards state-sponsered and even state mandated religious observations. And it's my observation that it is usually the pro-gun crowd that is the strongest and most vocal pro-prayer. If the 2nd Amendment is so sacred (parden the pun), then so is the 1st.

How about they mandate a "moment of SCIENCE" instead? Scary, huh?
No, not really. I believe they call that "a class." Perhaps they should mandate a moment of CRITICAL THINKING so that the fanatic atheists could differentiate between a violation of their Constitutional rights and their bigotry being ruffled.

It is a moment of reflective silence, in which the religious can pray, if they so desire, the cheerleaders can ponder their ponytails, the goths can nuture their existential angst, and the atheists can quiver in indignation at the very notion that not everyone is an atheist. See, being a moment of reflective silence, it is up to the individual to use it as he sees fit. I think that's called... oh, yeah -- freedom.

So, do you think a school in an overwhelmingly atheist society would have a "moment of silence" mandated by legislation in their public schools? Of course they wouldn't. And they don't (check out European schools--look to Europe for all forms of enlightenment).

Legislatively mandated "moments of silence" are clearly an attempt at injecting religious practices into the public sphere and worse, in a forum where everyone is forced to participate--the students don't have the option of simply walking out, do they? A "moment of silence" IS implied prayer time.

Why can't religious people just keep their religious practices to themselves? Have your "moment of silence" in private. Then we wouldn't be arguing about it, would we?

And to "Opinionated," get a clue, trying to reverse a legislatively mandated "moment of silence" in PUBLIC schools IS getting government out of it.

How about they mandate a "moment of SCIENCE" instead? Scary, huh?

Bobbity --
Why are students required to have a moment of reflection? I dunno. Why are they required to study math, learn to read, and take tests? Because it teaches them something and because it is useful to still oneself into calm before taking on a busy day.

If people are sneaking off and talking to God during that moment, it's none of your business, or their neighbor's business, or anyone else's.

Atheists really do need to learn to pick their battles. Getting in an uproar about a moment of silent reflection at the beginning of the school day when Texas is a hair's breadth away from accrediting colleges which teach Biblical "creation science" -- looks to me like priorities need to be considered. One issue is a non-issue; the other will result in one of our largest states graduating people with degrees in superstition. I would think the latter is a tad more worthy of protest and active resistance.

Yes, I know terryb, like so many, didn't understand that atheists trying to shut down any belief system but their own is the same as religious fanatics trying to shut down any belief system but their own. However, terry's statement so beautifully applied to fanatics of any sort, I found it very applicable to the atheists in this thread who are taking a moment of reflective silence in school and turning it into the return of Torquemada.

The reaction is ridiculously out of proportion to the subject at hand. To me, it's just like when the evangelical zealots claim that people not being of their faith is persecution. "You're letting gays be gay! That's persecuting me!" No, it isn't.

They are wrong, and so are the atheists who object to any sign that not everyone is an atheist. People are allowed -- no, people are *encouraged* to seek their own answers in a free society. But the atheists, like the evangelicals, are so smugly sure they have the meaning of an infinite universe tucked in their hip pocket, they just can't stand it when other people don't agree with their philosophy.

And that's all this uproar is. It is a moment of silence. If you make it anything more, *you* are the one bringing the baggage and you can just leave the government out of it.

I also don't think terryb was in discord with what ascott said, Opinionated, I think they were in agreement.

Why do we need to be 'told' to reflect, can people simply reflect when they see fit, Opinionated? Who is stopping anyone from 'reflecting'? Its the requirement at issue. Must we have group reflection time, can't we just have private reflection time?

Ascott,
How can you be so paranoid? To hear you talk, you'd think the state was conducting baptisms in the swimming pool. Don't be absurd. They are holding a moment of silent reflection at the beginning of the school day.

No mention of prayer. No mention of God. Silent. Reflection. You cannot tell me atheists do not reflect and, though I've never seen it, they must be capable of silence without violating their personal philosophy.

It's your own prejudice and desire to force other to adhere to your own beliefs that is making you blow the situation out of proportion.

I'd agree with terryb. If you are so insecure in your life philosophy that a group of people being silent makes you freak out, you must be very insecure indeed.

personally i am totally secure in my beliefs. i have no need for conformation from others. maybe those that feel the need to prosylatize, and push their religion on others, need the conformation of as many that they can convince, to help quell that tiny little doubt that keeps nagging in the back of their mind.

CD, would youlike to help with the terminology if it isn't working for you? What words would be acceptable to make the meaning clear without being offensive? It is a touchy topic with strong beliefs on both sides. It isn't measurable. It isn't concrete it is faith and faith is a belief. To many it is a myth. I'm believing you just want everyone to progress to your system of 'belief' perhaps?

CDeams2 says "10 ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT misuses of the words myth - mythology". Hmmmm... first I look at the Oxford English Dictionary and find mythology defined as:

"A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures , which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon."

Okay, so far so good. Most comments here use the term with that meaning.

Then I look in The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce, and find:

"MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later."

Yep, correct on both counts. So what's your problem, Deams?

For the article and comments to date:

80 uses of "believe" - believer" - "non-believer" - "belief" - "beliefs"

10 ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT misuses of the words myth - mythology

ZERO uses of the words "seek" - "seeking" - "seeker"

"Progressives?" Lot's of room for progress here.

Bobbity, you are so right.

After the Trade Center attacks, when it seemed that everyone had suddenly decided that one just had to fly a flag to be patriotic, I was appalled to find that most of them had no knowledge of - or respect for? - proper flag etiquette. I also saw flags out in the rain, in the dark, even put up backwards in windows. They also seem to think it's a good thing to have tablecloths, paper plates, kites, t-shirts - just about anything - imprinted with the flag. If these people are so intent on public displays of 'patriotism,' they ought to get the rules straight.

One of my neighbors thought it was okay to throw an old flag into the trash. When I told him that one of the approved methods of disposition of a worn or damaged flag was by burning it, he bacame irate and accused me of being an 'anti-American pinko trouble-maker'! (Why are the people who scream the loudest generally the ones with the least knowledge?)

I don't display the flag, either. I don't believe that flying a flag will make me more patriotic - and I don't feel the need to prove anything.

It saddens me to see how many Americans are so obsessive about superficialities. We are indeed a consumer society - and far too many of us are not savvy consumers, but are willing to believe the loudest advertiser. (Do you think television conditions viewers that way, what with commercials blaring far above the volume of programs?) That is a question that recently occurred to me; I think I'll take it to someone who studies communications. Or perhaps someone who knows a lot more about mind control than I do.

My own view is that one ought to be able to get one's point across in a civil manner. If someone needs to shout, I always suspect that he doesn't have any more faith in the validity of his position than he has respect for those at whom he is shouting.

Heathen

Hello! You ought to have seen the nuns' faces when I announced that I was not going to recite their prayers or go to their masses! (I was in sixth grade.) The pressure on kids to conform is incredible. But resist it I did, as I am naturally stubborn; and an object of ridicule I became, but I saw it as a badge of honor: I was an independent thinker and willing to defend my right to think and believe as I saw fit.

On the other hand, it dismays me to know that so many in the armed forces were so willing to conform. It's much worse now, as you're probably aware, with attendance at clearly religious gatherings now mandatory in the academies - and, no, it does not matter that that is against military regulations. It's shameful that those who enter the armed forces, believing that they are going to defend our liberties, should do so only to discover that their own liberties are being curtailed.

I am actually surprised that any god would require so many salespeople, ascott. That is how it feels to me in my evangelical hotbed hospital.
Your point about people being intent on practising correctly is similar to the peole who wrap themselves in flags and defend flags and fly flags and don't realize they are contravening their own rules of respectful flag display with their tattered flag hanging soddenly in the rain in the dark. I don't display the flag, yet I know about the rules!

Opinionated

How can you be so blind? One is the refusal to let government intervene in what ought to be one's personal beliefs, and the other is the wanton insistence that government intrude in just such a fashion.

Separation of church and state. Separation of the 'sacred' and the 'profane.' There was a time when the religiously-minded and the secularly-inclined understood that both were protected by the those separations.

Once upon a time, the Baptists saw that such separation was a very good thing for them and their church. Read President Thomas Jefferson's letter to the **grateful** Danbury Baptists. Of course, that's when/where they were a tiny minority and wanted protection for members of religious minority. Now a large, very wealthy, and too influential church, the Baptists (among others) are now screaming that not allowing them to inflict religion on the rest of us somehow violates their rights. (What hypocrisy.)

Do you not know the old philosophical constant, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? No one is suggesting that the rights of religious students to pray should be curtailed - just that their prayers not be inflicted on others. The atheists do not want to insist that others go prayerless, but the (phony) religious want the government to support the imposition of their prayer into others' space.

If you can't see the difference between "Let's all keep our beliefs out of each others' faces" and "Freedom of religion means that I have the right to insert my beliefs anywhere I want, no matter whose beliefs they oppose or offend" - well, that's a very good example of deep and intrisic bias.

Try thinking of it this way: Suppose Muslims were the religious majority in the US. How would those same evangelicals react to the government supporting the encroachment of Islam into everyone else's space? When trying to determine the validity of such actions, it always helps to put yourself in the place of the minority.

Once again, asking that others keep their praying to themselves is not the same as imposing your beliefs/traditions on others.

True Christian tradition says pray in private. The Constitution says keep religion out of public life. They agree with each other. Real Christians still believe that. What's wrong with evangelicals? (Seems to me that people who are intent on spreading their religion ought to be the first to insist that it be practiced correctly.)

Anyone who fails to see that simply does not want to see it.

Ascott,
Actually the atheists trying to shut down a government funded silent moment of reflection is exactly the same as evangelical Christians trying to make the government fund prayer. The fanatical atheists want to stop any opportunity for prayer, so their philosophy is the only one practiced, just as extremist Christians want to mandate prayer so theirs is.

And both are dead wrong. A silent moment of reflection is a perfectly reasonable compromise. No one is being led in prayer, nor forced to pray if the don't want to, nor is it called a moment of prayer. You're just so fanatical that any hint of a person having the opportunity to pray frightens you and since you think you can manipulate the government to enforce your beliefs, you're trying. That is not what separation of Church and State is about -- it is meant to ensure personal liberty for everyone, though you would abridge that, if you could.

LeeAnnG, thanks! It's always nice to know that one's misery has company, even if one wouldn't wish their misery upon another.

I was born without an inch of back-up in me, so I was always able to withstand peer pressure of the sort that your friends' daughter experienced. I got a lot of practice at it, paid the price to retain my dignity, and just accepted that there are certain circles where religion ought not to be a factor but into which I nevertheless will never be welcome.

My own daughter, the youngest, wasn't quite as strong and finally cracked under the peer pressure. She'd always been an honor student, participated in school sports, 4-H, FFA, Girl Scouts, and so on. She was always a happy, bubbly, irrepressible child, but during her freshman year in high school she just couldn't stand being a social outcast any longer. We lived at that time in a very small, isolated town here in the west, one in which the Baptist church was the de facto shadow government, so her quiet non-participation in the rituals left her rejected by her peers. She buckled, and in order to gain acceptance she began attending church, church youth groups, and so on.

Within a few months, she went from social outcast to homecoming princess, and missed being her class president by one vote. She had no idea that she was even on the ballot for homecoming princess until she actually saw the ballot. But, since she had conformed, she was rewarded and given the opportunities that she had in every other way already earned many times over.

She went with it for a while, enjoying her new-found popularity, until she realized what had just happened. When she realized that being herself was not enough, that she also had to at least pretend to share the mythological belief system of her peers in order to be accepted, she rebelled. She quit going to church, and was once again outcast. It made her angrily resentful, and she dropped out of sports, 4-H, FFA, and all other extracurricular activities. Shortly afterward, she lost interest in her schoolwork and began failing her classes. Within a year, she dropped out of school completely. The dinky little town that was our home and had always been as far as she was concerned the finest place on Earth became a hated place, and the small town folks she'd always loved became hated as the instruments of her oppression. (Teenaged girls tend to overreact.)

It's certainly possible that I in some way failed as a father, or that she has some organic or psychological malfunction at the root of the problem. I readily acknowledge that coincidence does not prove cause in some 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' illogic, but I saw what I saw and the many details all fit together perfectly. What happened to her was almost certainly due to the fact that she chose to become a silent non-participant in the religious rituals of our society, and she was punished for it.

I wish your friends' daughter well, and hope that she can find a safe path through the minefield that is religion in our society.

If you want refection and or prayer in school,perhaps a religious school is the answer. As I recall, we had lots of moments of silence in school, and no one had to declare them. The teacher just called you to order and you shut up and reflected till she told you you could talk.I remember because my tablet got closed between mine and my neighbor's desk on one of these occasions and when I politely asked him to free it I got SPANKED for talking! In public school. Detention was good that way, too.
I work with patients in a hospital and I have to see their socialization and spiritual needs are considered and nutured and respected in a hospital that puts forward a judeo-christian mission statement. I take their beliefs very seriously and will do everything to see that they are not interrupted in worship by treatments, etc. I think they are entitled to respect for their beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.
If only my own beliefs were so well respected by my colleagues. I don't make a point of telling them I don't believe in supernatural beings, god, santa etc. or that I find their faith incomprehensible.I am also, strangely, known for my 'good christian attitude' and was to be honored for my kindness and respect of our patients by a prayer group at our hospital until they discovered I am in fact a heathen.
One friend who knows my feelings and beliefs and was truly trying to be kind,wanted to give me a birthday treat and took me to a movie. The Passion of the Christ - and tried to convert me to christianity because she 'loves' me and wants me to see her in heaven. I wondered if she would feel honored at my concern for her when I wanted her to know the truth and invited her to see farenheit 911? The outcry would have been marvelous to behold, but she would have been offended, and she would have been rude to me about it, and in spite of her insensitivity and blinders on this subject, I do like her.Because of the filter of her belief she didn't see how her 'treat' was offensive to me.
Hot on the heels of this event, same friend and a chaplain were getting ready for occaisons to mark the 4th of july and told me for our patients' picnic( I was the staff member scheduled for that day alone) I should wear a red white and blue hat and carry a flag for the barbecue. I declined. They were puzzled, "aren't you patriotic?" they asked. I replied I love my country but felt 'patriotism' done their way leads to unhealthy nationalism. They were not happy , and I wondered where they got the right to question me about my beliefs in this manner.
I think if it is ok to press people to respect a moment of silence, or a prayer, or a flag, then whoever is being pressured to do this should get equal time to air their beliefs or lack of them, and that right should be respected. We are blinded to the fact that we disrespect the rights of others by not thinking about the flip side of our own beliefs.
oh, and the kids will be text messaging anyway, but the principle of choice should be upheld.Yes, if you want a moment of silence, take one, no one is stopping you, whenever you want.

No, Opinionated,

The problem was not that a student was 'sneaking in a quick word to God.' The problem is with legislatures that willingly let the camel's nose - and more - under the tent.

See my post of 4:25.

I don't know of any atheists who want to prevent anyone from praying on their own time. However, the state is not allowed to put aside time for "silent refection and student prayer."

Illinois is my state. It is interesting to note that this same state is not concerned with protecting people from negligent, dishonest, and/or reckless doctors that it employs, or protecting students from state-supported universities that illegally screw with student transcripts from other universities.

Perhaps they ought to worry more about ethics and less about when or how a student might pray. Unfortunately, a very large segment of the population, not to mention legislatures, insist upon focussing on ensuring public displays of too-often-false piety, but give no thought to teaching or promoting ethical behavior.

>>a zealot will force conformity via the law

Like the Illinois State Legislature did in this case? Silence is great, and more reflection is badly needed. But a law that says it SHALL be done sounds exactly like something a zealot would do!

I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Government organizations, and that includes public schools, are not allowed to endorse religion but a moment of silence seems a reasonable thing. If an atheist fears some students may be sneaking in a quick word to God during that moment and wants them stopped, well... that's fanaticism for you.

It amazes me the fanatical atheists cannot see they are very much like the evangelical fundamentalist Christians -- a zealot is a zealot, and zealots just can't stand it when not everyone sees the world the way they do. Christian or atheist, a zealot will force conformity via the law, if he can but fortunately, our Constitution is built to favor diversity and personal liberty, instead.

Goodbye, all. AARGH!

Nobody answers the questions raised by others, nor refutes statements. It appears that a bunch of folk have gathered here to vent their collective spleen. Often, their spleen can't spell and has its dates all wrong. But nobody seems to notice.

I guess freedom, in the minds of some, is the freedom to draw conclusions from made up "facts."

Well, rant on,and rev each other up, and by all means, never ask another, "What's your source?"

Oh! and switch off that propoganda machine called TV. and don't under any circumstances buy a " news " paper.

You don't have to study the bible just the people who are guided by it to know it's not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at the USA and Britain both run by religious nutcases and both hell bent on mass murder and destruction all in the name of democracy. What democracy, a chance to vote in a rigged election, a media hell bent on keeping the status quo of a depressed society living for the most part in sub-standard housing some having 3 poorly paid jobs. Come on folks, wake up, stop being taken for a mug and get rid of the 2 party system and get rid of organised religion.

The First Amendment of our Constitution begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Note the second part of that. It clearly allows students to be given a break to pray or meditate or whatever. I have always been opposed to government-prescribed prayer and Bible reading such as was practiced when I grew up in Baltimore. In the second grade I realized that my Jewish and RC classmates were being told to participate with a King James Bible and a Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. It seemed wrong to an eight year old. In high school our classes were more eclectic. We had Muslims too. Nobody should be running interference with others' rights to freely have a minute of peace to silently practice whatever they believe. And it's all constitutionally upheld.

tweck, the very fact that there is a law requiring people to have a moment of silence, is an infringement on peoples rights. it's a small step towards mind control. i trust that you want the freedom to think as you choose. i want that for you also. that's what freedom is all about.

LeaAnnG, your friends daughter is a perfect example of the harm that can be inflicted by these radical laws. believe what you like, as long as it is not detrimental to others. in this case, it is detrimental to some children. that in itself, should kill this policy. your friends daughter should hold her head high, take a stance, and tell others to mind their own business, and back off. and that she will find her own way on personal religious issues. if they can't handle that, thats their problem, not hers. good luck to her.

IMO, the law gives people the option of praying if they want to. What's religious about a moment of silence? Nothing.

In no way is a law requiring a moment of silence an infringement on peoples' right to not pray, and neither is it an endorsement of religion or prayer. You can do whatever you want with your moment of silence. This atheist person is just trying to make trouble for religious people.

If the atheist crowd had their way, they'd do their best to infringe on peoples' constitutional right to practice religion; oppression in the name of freedom.

Reminds me of this Wiccan person who was part of a poetry list I was on. Everyone sent whatever poetry they wanted into the list, it was a beautiful free-for-all of poetic expression. Then some Christian guy sent in a poem about Jesus, and the Wiccan person attacked him, claiming it was their right to not have to read poetry about Jesus, and Christian poems should be banned from the list. Primarily because this Wiccan person hated Christians and wanted to create trouble for them.

Me, I respect all religious and non-religious people alike, and think it's extremely petty when one side attacks the other and whines about their "rights", when their rights are not being infringed on.

If it was enforced prayer I'd be against it. I also don't think they should have the 10 Commandments in a courtroom, or try to enforce conformity to religiousness on the non-religious, or have prayer at government meetings.

But this law is not stopping anyone from not praying, and is not pushing religion on anyone. Nobody is telling this Atheist person that she has to talk to God, and the lawsuit is frivolous and stupid.

Heathen - very wonderful post. It summarizes what is wrong with even minimal efforts to enforce prayer or meditation or whatever.

I have good friends who are, like me, agnostic. They did not teach their children Christian mythology or prayers. When their daughter was in high school here in West-by-god-Virginia, she was on the soccer team. The team captain led everyone in the lord's prayer circle before each game. My friends' daughter didn't even know the words, so she didn't say it although she held hands with the others in the circle. She got a hard time from the captain who wanted to know why she was not reciting the lords prayer. In a culture where the vast majority of students are Christian, my friends' daughter was made to feel like an outsider. This should not have been allowed, and it's why we DO HAVE separation of church and state no matter what term is used.

Enforcing a moment of silence and prayer seems like an innocuous thing, and my first reaction was that this is just so unimportant. But the more I thought about it, the more it seems that it really is a kind of "foot in the door" in light of the religious intrusion and creeping control from fundamentalist views we have been experiencing in America during the Bush years.

And, by the way, there is no "god hating" going on on this site. There may be "god ridiculing," which might not be nice, but it's not the same as hating god. Hating god implies that there actually is such a being who deserves either love or hate. Atheists and agnostics are much, much more maligned in this country than any religious group. Christians of certain stripes love to see themselves as persecuted, but this is absurd considering - as someone pointed out above - that a candidate who declared a lack of "faith" in a higher power would be less electable than a Muslim, even in the antiIslam political climate in which we now find ourselves.

The law is a totally Unnecessary intrusion. Any student who feels the need to pray silently can do so at any time. Until the "Thought Police" arrive on the scene, there is no way to Prevent anyone from praying.

Anyone with a bit of common sense can figure that out with only a few seconds of "Silent Meditation".

Which means that the opponents of the law are correct. The only reason for passing such a law is to pressure students who do NOT feel any need for prayer.

Who are we kidding?
Since prayer was ruled out of classrooms, organized patriarchal religions have tried desperately to get it back in --- in order to legitimize themselves and gain state recognition of their "gods."

I would wish that those who support Separation of Church & State would turn their attention to the STATE legislatures which have "priests" on hand to conduct prayers for them and which taxpayers pay for. Same with the US Senate and USHR --- let's have these "god-fearing" reps pay the salaries and benefits for these preachers --- which is more than $400,000 a year in the case of the USHR!

Pretty quickly they'd be looking for a volunteer!
I also think they should keep their "prayers" off the floor of the Senate and USHR --- and pray in private, if that's what they wish to do.

I am late joining this discussion, but as a non-practicing Catholic who believes in a higher power, my personal take is that all religious practices belong in churches and in homes. NOT in the public schools. If parents want their children to pray or meditate, then they can teach them, and not leave it to public schools to do it. Religious practices are personal, not public. Amen!

I see that progressive now means "profane," "deprived," "sadly lacking gentler arts of communication," and "probably from the rust belt." It's a culture I think, and I've probably subscribed to the wrong newsletter.

I deplore the strident "Christianity" of the tele-vangelists and far right-wing zealots as much as many here do, but using hateful words doesn't make far right-wingers any less hateful and doesn't make the user less angry and DOESN'T MAKE THINGS BETTER IN THE US.

Those fearful of prayer's being the camel's nose take heart. We prayed in school up till the '60s as a matter of course...until the angry zoned-out hippies. Everything's not society's fault. Some people are the author of their own discontent.

Why can't we all just tone down the rhetoric (moment of silence)? Why can't we all just get along.

At the risk of sounding "prune-faced, humorless, and scowling," or giving the Left a bad name by focusing on "petty bullshit," how is it that the atheists are "ignoring the fact that this country is going to hell in a handbasket" by complaining about a stupid law passed by the Illinois State Legislature?

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

- Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-82)

KEM I concur on the fart, but in the spirit of the exercise, it should be a SILENT but deadly!

This is all beancounting, 15 seconds of silence is not something to get panties in a wad about. Yes I see the possibility of slippery slope of erasing the separation of church and state yada yada yada. But really this is the type of a hot button non-issue like abortion or gay marriage that gets people all worked up,while ignoring the fact that this country is going to hell in a handbasket due to global warming, foreign policy, healthcare, wars, corporate irresponsibility, torture, etc etc etc. We got the Freedom from Religion foundation here in Madison WI and speaking as an atheist/agnostic (depends on when you ask me) I wish they would shut up, go away and stop majoring in the minors.

The "moment of silence" is very clearly what has historically been known as a moment of prayer, and changing the phrasing of the policies doesn't change this fact any more than choosing the name "USA PATRIOT Act" makes the legislation below the name somehow patriotic.

I obviously do not accept the prevailing mythology of my culture, and just as obviously my culture does not (fully) accept me. So it is, so be it. It's never really bothered me until recently, until the fundamentalist psychos gained so much power that they now threaten not only the peace and stability of every nation on Earth but the very lives of everyone within those societies, including this one. Now, it bothers me a lot. It bothers me to my core.

Right around the time of the 1980 election, I was in US Air Force basic training. On our first Sunday there, we were "permitted" to go to invisible space daddy brainwashing services "if we so desired". The underlying tone made it clear that we should so desire, without an explicit declaration of such. Of 52 young men in my flight (that thing the Army calls a company), 51 went. I stayed behind, and I was soon challenged by the Training Instructor, "Why are you here? You don't believe in gawd?" He was yelling, of course. That's what they (TI's) do. I responded calmly, "Sir, whether or not I believe and how I choose to express it is none of the Air Force's concern." He was clearly unhappy with my answer, but that was the end of that. The following Sunday, eight or ten others stayed behind in the barracks. Six weeks later, only about a dozen attended services. I was curious, so I asked every one of those who did not attend services why they had gone initially but had since opted not to, and the universal response was "I thought it was expected of me". I asked them why they opted out, and the universal response was "Because you did it first, and you didn't suffer any repercussions". These were 18-24 year old men. Little more than children, really, but of an age to begin making their own decisions, and they were unwilling to make those decisions for themselves because of the fear of some consequences that were never threatened and did not exist. Just the thought of potential peer pressure motivated them to surrender their self direction.

Also in basic training, one trainee who fancied himself a Sufferin' Baptist minister would kneel beside his bed after lights out and not just pray, but actually "lead us in prayer". He had a fine voice for it, very loud, full of religious fervor, a voice that boomed and echoed throughout the barracks. The barracks was divided by a wall into two bays and we were on the same side. On our side of the barracks, I was the only one who didn't jump up out of bed and kneel in prayer, but on the other side it was about a 50/50 split. I asked about this, and again got the "... because I think it's expected of me" story from the guys on my side of the barracks. Those on the other side, those who could not be seen by the self appointed minister, felt more free to make their own decision in the matter. Some who were on the free side of the wall knelt beside their beds with their heads bowed but resented that they felt compelled to do so. The self appointed minister was a trainee just like the rest of us, a young man with no appointed or moral authority over any of us.

Now, you tell me, how is an eight year old going to respond to the peer pressure directing her to bow her head and pray to invisible space daddy? Is she going to stand up and tell the teacher and her classmates to stay out of her head, or is she going to do what is expected of her? When her classmates take it upon themselves to tell her that she's going to hell for not believing in their mythology, is she going to laugh it off or is she going to try to find a way to believe first in hell and then in the vehicle of her salvation from it? She's not developed autonomy enough to fend off peer pressure, so of course she's going to become another good sheeple even though it is not the course she would have chosen for her life in the absence of that peer pressure.

And is this how we want to raise our children, the future leaders of whatever might be left of our country? To always do whatever they think might be expected of them, whether it's right or wrong, whether it's of their own choosing or not? To always back down in the face of authority even when that authority is dead ass wrong? I surely don't. I know who is doing the expecting, and how they operate. I grew up with it, and so did you. And when I look around at the nation of sheeple in which I live, I am disgusted by the general lack of backbone I see in the people around me. It is that general lack of backbone that convinces me that the democracy we lost long before our current puppet dictator got to sit in the big chair will not be coming back.

But on that off chance that maybe democracy will be restored for my grandchildren, I am absolutely opposed to school prayer even if the name is changed to "a moment of silent reflection". We need to raise children who think, who ask questions and question the answers because those are the people who create progress. We already have a nation of consumers, of people who spend their lives working to buy things because they believe that their worth is measured by the things they own, and look where it's gotten us.

Religion is a tool for social control. The more controlled a society, the less free are its members. And we here in America are more controlled and less free every day thanks to the religious zealots who are firmly in control.

That's why 15 second a day of "silent reflection" is a bad thing, and why I am opposed to it. If you want your kid to pray, make time for it at home. If you don't want your kid to be forced to pray, fight to eliminate school prayer even when it's behind the facade of a euphemism.

how about congress allowing an atheist to start with a prayer, denouncing all gods and mythology.

To make a point. I don't mean to cuss. Every GOOD praying person here needs to remember they are not in HER school or HER state or in HER classroom with HER teachers. I went to catholic school and it was prayer time we prayed. When I went to public school, when it was time we went public? No, The fight is about respect. In public school, you pray on your own time.

Heck it even says in the bible you should keep your prayers to your self and not try to pray in public to make yourself look better than you really are. That stuff should be left out of school. HOLY ME LOOK I'M PRAYING TO SOME thing where ever it fucking is.....

PJD

Allow me to introduce myself: I am a 'professed atheist' - and I'll bet you know no one who is quicker to grin than I am. There is nothing I like better than a good joke, including politically incorrect jokes. (I generally stick to 'my own,' and have a small but growing collection of Scottish jokes, as well as French.)

I like to believe that I can find humor in almost anything. One afternoon, I was describing to a co-worker how I came to have several fingers slashed, and I laughingly repeated my gestures and exclamations at the time of the event. (I had found humor in it then.) He cracked up, too, while another co-worker butted in to tell us how improper it seemed - despite the fact that they were *my* fingers. (She was 'religious.')

However, I resent any group's imposition of their beliefs on anyone else. A moment of silence can be instituted in such a way that it would not suggest that students ought to pray. (Unfortunately, there are teachers that could not be trusted to refrain from making their bias known.)

Indeed, when I taught reading, I always asked my students to settle down, sit quietly for a minute or two, and ready themselves mentally for the task ahead. It generally worked fairly well. I have no idea whether anyone took that opportunity to pray; it was simply not my business. (From personal experience, I doubt it. Having spent eight years in Catholic school, I know that a lot of students did not pray during silent prayer time, and one can assume that kids haven't changed much.)

I also take exception to another poster's suggestion that this is defending the rights of atheists over those of others. It is, rather, a matter of not extending special rights to those that believe in public prayer. How would one defend the rights of atheists over those of others? forbid others to use any free time to pray? That wouldn't defend atheists' rights.

By the way, 'others' (above) does not include all religious people. Some of my theist - even churched - aquaintances resent the idea of inserting something they hold sacred into a secular setting: they feel it demeans both the tradition of prayer in particular, and faith in general.

This is in accord with the insistence of the members of some sects that they be administered a civil oath in court. It is, for them, not only a matter of the separation of church and state, but also - for some, primarily - a matter of keeping separate the sacred and the profane.

Some very religious people want to keep their religion in their churches and their homes. (In explaining this attitude, many Christians would refer to Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto god, that which is god's.)

It would be a good time of silence, to let out a loud fart.

So what's wrong with a moment of silence? The word "prayer" should be left out of it entirely, that way people can be silent in their own respective ways and there is no reference to a deity.

I'm waiting for the day when religious entities have to start paying taxes (retroactive to the founding of the country) before they can have political opinions or clout!

When I was in elementary school in the 1930s, it went without saying that we had opening exercises: a Bible reading, maybe memorizing a psalm, singing a verse of America and a salute to the flag.

Some of us were part of the "greatest generation." I don't remember any parents or kids who were angry with this tradition of opening exercises in public schools back to the beginning of public schools in this country.

It was a much more creative country then and a lot nicer.

{{When high school freshman Dawn Sherman learned that Illinois had a law requiring public schools to provide a moment of silence each day for "reflection and student prayer," she was outraged.}}

They should make the law say "reflection OR student prayer", and move on.

{{But advocates of the laws say they give educators a tool to focus their students' attention and provide children a chance to reflect on either personal issues or the challenges they might face that day.}}

I would like to see it 15 MINUTES, too, not 15 seconds. If American teenagers could sit quietly for 15 minutes, I think our countries future would be much brighter...
As it is, the average American high school student is more ignorant than what, average students from Burundi, Peru and Thailand ??

Playing a little Bach or Mozart, maybe even for longer than 15 seconds, might be a really productive starter to the school day. Couldn't hurt -

I can understand why some people would see this as a "petty" issue compared to something like the war on Iraq.
But I don't think it is.
The law doesn't prohibit anyone from voluntarily "reflecting" or even praying, does it?
So the non-atheists' rights are not being infringed upon.
That's a straw argument.

What's going on is an end-run around the constitution in order to force students to participate or to feel ostracized -- and targeted -- for NOT participating.
It's another move to desensitize young people to arbitrary government control of every move, every moment.

It may be true that you sometimes should "pick your battles" but I think anyone who's ever been in an ACTUAL battle will tell you it's also usually a big mistake to ingore the enemy closest to you.
I think we have to fight on every front we find, with every weapon at our disposal.
You never know what effect a "little" resistance will have --- like not giving up your seat on a bus, for example.

One of the reasons we're in the mess we're in is that we let the bad guys get away with "petty" things that set the stage for greater tyranies.

Just my opinion.

Liberty & Justice,

SJ

www.spartacusjones.com

Too many of you are caught up on the term "atheist", and what you think it means and what you think "atheists" want. It's really an absurd term. For example, take what one poster here said about "atheists", but substitute some other "a-" term:

"A-alchemists always seem to strike me as being intolerant towards those who do believe in Alchemy...Hopefully I'll meet some A-alchemists someday who will act otherwise."

Faith -- belief without sufficient evidence -- does not deserve respect, whether it's astrology, alchemy, belief in Thor or any other god decaying in the graveyard of mythology. And we don't need special terms to describe people who want evidence for other people's fantastic claims.

Be sure: those who work hard for "a moment of silence" or "intelligent design" in science class are ultimately after one thing: American Theocracy. And you can thank Jefferson and Madison and countless other (real) patriots that we have not arrived there (yet).

Next time someone tells you that America is a Christian Nation, ask them: "How so?...In the same way that Iran is a Muslim Nation?"

If you want your kid taught only science in science class, if you want to keep your freedom to practice your faith in whatever god you like, then you'll fight to protect the First Amendment as if your life depended on it.

And for those who don't think that the more strident strains of Faith are of any concern, consider radical Islam's love for Martyrdom, and how this love has now tipped Pakistan closer to chaos, how it contributes to daily killings in Iraq, how it took 3,000 lives on 9/11.

Then you can whine about "atheists".

Too many of you are caught up on the term "atheist", and what you think it means and what you think "atheists" want. It's really an absurd term. For example, take what one poster here said about "atheists", but substitute some other "a-" term:

"A-alchemists always seem to strike me as being intolerant towards those who do believe in Alchemy...Hopefully I'll meet some A-alchemists someday who will act otherwise."

Faith -- belief without sufficient evidence -- does not deserve respect, whether it's astrology, alchemy, belief in Thor or any other god decaying in the graveyard of mythology. And we don't need special terms to describe people who want evidence for other people's fantastic claims.

Be sure: those who work hard for "a moment of silence" or "intelligent design" in science class are ultimately after one thing: American Theocracy. And you can thank Jefferson and Madison and countless other (real) patriots that we have not arrived there (yet).

Next time someone tells you that America is a Christian Nation, ask them: "How so?...In the same way that Iran is a Muslim Nation?"

If you want your kid taught only science in science class, if you want to keep your freedom to practice your faith in whatever god you like, then you'll fight to protect the First Amendment as if your life depended on it.

And for those who don't think that the more strident strains of Faith are of any concern, consider radical Islam's love for Martyrdom, and how this love has now tipped Pakistan closer to chaos, how it contributes to daily killings in Iraq, how it took 3,000 lives on 9/11.

Then you can whine about "atheists".

OK, so we'll have a moment of (not-necessarily prayer) silence in school. And I will SILENTLY pull out a Spiderman comic and read it. Or maybe a racing form and SILENTLY handicap the daily double at Santa Anita. How long do you think it will be before somebody objects that I'm either mocking their beliefs, or not using the moment for the purpose it was intended?

Will I be admonished that I can't read comics or plan my day at the track during the moment of silence?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

OTOH, if I SILENTLY pull out a bible and read it, who will challenge my impropriety?

This is ALL ABOUT the establishment of religion and must be fought without compromise.

I have no damn idea what observing 15 seconds of silence is supposed to do, or reciting the pledge of allegiance, or singing "The Star-spangled Banner", or what any of that other ceremonial bullcrap is supposed to do. It's pure time-waste to me; I guess it's inflicted on the masses to enforce the appearance of our being happy, humble slaves.

I'm sorry and sad that so many of you take this nonsense so amicably. Why do things like this have to be enshrined in law? Why can't they be simple, genuine, spontaneous acts of caring or feeling, instead of becoming government directives or a hidebound rituals? They lose whatever meaning they ever once had when they become a requisite and ceremonial act.

Respecting a moment of silence is not religious at all. Why can't this girl simply sit there and reflect on her day or think about what she plans to do that evening after school? She doesn't have to contemplate the universe. Talk about being ridiculous and militant.

My beef with moments of silence is that it is good cover for those who do not try to reduce the tragedies that inspire people to ask for moments of silence. It is kind of like tying a yellow ribbon rather than opposing war to support the troops.

I think I will wear a wrist band to promote that thought.

School-age individuals are required by law to attend school regardless of their beliefs on the nature of divinty.

These individuals are 100% free to express their religious beliefs during class time, and many in my personal experience chose with relish to avail themselves of this freedom. These same students are also free to express their religious beliefs through pretty much any non-interfering ritual or rite during all break and lunch times, in the hallways, in the lunchrooms, in the locker rooms, in the classrooms and offices of consenting teachers, before and after school, at Church, at home, and everywhere else in the world. Many of my fellow students chose to "meet at the flagpole" before school to pray to the Christian God underneath the American flag. This is unavoidably a political act, but that is another theme entirely.

So, with all this freedom, with all of this opportunity, all of this supportive culture, why is it necessary to bring any form of religious or quasi-religious ceremony into the actual class session? Does any student ever lose anything for not praying to God, for not meditating, for not thinking atheist thoughts during a regulated and ritualized quasi-religious performance before every class?

It's all about the symbolic politics, the "culture wars," and the re-establishment of Christian Hegemony. Anyone who speaks about this issue without addressing this core element is speaking in a distracted discourse.

What kinda crap is this? If an Atheist has no one to talk to, in a moment of silence, then let them just sit there and contemplate the hair on the neck of the student sitting in front of them!
How petty can a person be. When in the hell is enough, enough?

For the record I voted for George W. Bush twice, and support Ron Paul for President.

That ought to get me tarred and feathered in here...

Food for thought my friends:

1. The Constitution expressly protects both free speech and the free exercise of religion
2. The words "separation of church and state" do not occur in the Constitution, however "or the free exercise thereof" do, in regards to religion in particular
3. A moment of silence is not religious
4. Look up at your comments, the hatred and hostility towards God is overwhelming

This nation was founded by Godly men who specifically came here so that they would not be persecuted for believing in God in any manner they so chose. What you are suggesting here flies in the face of historical fact, the U.S. Constitution and general respect for the rights of others (specifically people who disagree with you). Not very liberal of you, is it my friends?

I don't know what an "active, overt atheist" is and (I'm guessing) have never met one either. Sounds to me that these "active" types (as described somewhere above in Duluth) are mere anti-theists, not atheists. The vast majority of religiosos and atheists I know are too busy being themselves, getting through their days with one another in the most usual of ways. Hmm, come to think of it, I remember a friend a few years back - a self avowed atheist who attended some group meetings at some local chapter of whatever - who tried to get me to admit or verbally declare that I was an atheist. I explained that I don't do handstands on demand and that I was too busy not caring about a self label to perform for him. Damn, I'm so hip, so wordly, and far better than anyone else, irregardless of my personal beliefs.
Hey, whose for burgers and beer?

"In 2002, Illinois lawmakers passed the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act".
""What's the problem? Every single time we meet on the Senate floor, we open up the session with prayer - whether it's given by a rabbi, or a priest, or a Buddhist or a minister," Lightford said."

It amazes me that people don't see what the problem is—so much so that I believe they're just saying things off the cuff that they'll regret on further reflection (maybe 15 seconds of silence, maybe longer), or they're feigning ignorance, a risky game as people tend to be taken over by the roles they play. Personally I spent years doing Buddhist meditation, now I'm a psychotherapist who finds a lot of change happens in silence. I like the idea of silent times in school; not just 15 seconds but say, 15 minutes. Or maybe an hour. But we live in times in which laws like this happen in a context, and that context is pointed to perfectly by the name of the 2002 Illinois bill—Silent Reflection and Student P-R-A-Y-E-R Act! Yes, there are other crucial concerns—environmental destruction and global warming, looming wars over oil and water, and the ongoing takeover of the US by fascism. But intentionally or not, consciously or not this innocent silence-in-school idea is one small part of a comprehensive, aggressive and relentless program (make that 'ongoing takeover by theocratic fascism'), and if you deny it you either haven't been paying attention or you're lying because you're part of it. Camel's nose? More like the tip of the police baton and tank gun barrel.
Don't think it's a judeo-christian movement? How bout that other "what's the problem?" comment: "rabbi, priest…minister" or… I suspect he either wasn't paying attention, which suggests it's a dumb idea, or they haven't had too many Buddhists on the floor of the Senate or Lightford would have known what kind of Buddhists they had—priests, monks, nuns, or some student who thought it was cool to wear the little two-fish-with-dots thing around his neck.

'the world is my country and my religion is to do good' (thomas paine)...i like this statement and it pretty much fits me...i don't need to believe in a supernatural being or belong to an organized group with a book of tenents that i must live by...

i spent a week's vacation painting the steeple of a small upstate ny church because i adore my aunt and uncle who have added for over 50 years...i worked many summer saturdays as a lead carpenter for habitat for humanity (a christian organization) and i assisted my incarcerated brother in converting to catholicism...i don't think many christians would be willing to volunteer to work for atheist or humanist organizations...

as a non-believer, i am offended that the legal tender i must use in this country falsely claims 'in god we trust'...how arrogant is that? i would say that that clearly violates the constitution...i just cross out the phrase and hope it encourages others to contemplate why someone would do that...i find it offensive for someone to say 'god bless' when i sneeze...it is offensive to me that every state and federal sector shuts down for 'the christmas holiday' but not other religious holidays...it is offensive to me when the folks on npr say 'the week before christmas' rather than the third week in december...it's arrogant to dismiss other religions or those who do not 'believe' at all...

even the term atheist is offensive to me...it is akin to calling a white person 'non-black' or a dog 'non-human' or a christian a 'non-atheist'...

sure there are larger, more pressing issues than the mandatory momentsof silence but i find that i can be concerned about more than one thing at a time...i very rarely talk about the fact that i am a realist because i have learned that most people are very intolerant of those who do not believe the way that they do...

Imagine my horror this Christmas Day, standing in a prayer circle with my devoutly Christian family (two of them are missionaries/pastors in training)... as an atheist. They insist that we go around the circle and individually thank God for what we have been given. I felt like running out the door and never coming back! And I love these people, and respect their beliefs. I just said, "Yeah, what he said..." seconding my 13-year-old cousin at my side.

Thinking back now I should have said, "I am thankful this will be over soon," or, "I am thankful that my brain evolved in such a way that it is capable of logical thought."

Now imagine a classroom of children (of all faiths) expected to pray...when adults can't even share what they believe with their own families--out of fear that they will be ostracized by the people who love them! Why do Christians have to make a show out of prayer? I can tell you that the Muslim child probably doesn't want to roll out a mat and pray toward Mecca in front of everyone. That might kill their social life in this day and age (regretfully). I know it is 15 seconds of silence... but it only takes one second to discriminate against those who are different from you. I respect people who want to make personal prayer...truly personal--by doing it on their own time.

However, I think it is an excellent current events topic to discuss in the classroom, so that children may understand why the separation of church and state is so important.

Personally, I felt that a moment of silence was a refreshing way to start a class, however, I agree that it should not have a religious meaning.

The USA has to get over the god myth if it ever wants to rejoin the civilised world.
Faith is the mental illness dragging the USA back into the dark ages.
Any action that helps Americans to avoid becoming infected is a good thing.

'In 2002, Illinois lawmakers passed the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act'

Did anyone notice the name of the law? It seems pretty clear to me what they are trying to promote.

Having been in high school more recently than probably all of the other posters here, I can tell you that I kept my beliefs to myself for very good reasons. Attending a public school in Ohio, not exposing myself as an atheist was important. My classmates were judgmental, if I was the only person in the class not participating in a moment of silence, it would be noticable.

Although, I might not have minded a moment of silence in school compared to the science teacher I had who quoted the bible in class.

I'm glad there are people standing up for issues like this.

Why in hell must it be MANDATORY? Simple question!

I'm not an atheist, but I believe 100% in the complete and total separation of church and state. Organized religion, which appears to me to have been used by the state as a powerful tool to control the masses (that's you and me, my friend) throughout history, is what I'm really wary of. I think churches should be treated as businesses for tax purposes, and I also think references to God should be removed from our currency and the Pledge of Allegiance. Having read more than a little about the horrors of the state-sponsored Christian-on-Christian co-persecution in England during Shakespeare's time, for example, I'm very afraid of church-state coalitions. Want a couple of examples of how modern-day state religions operate? Have a look at Iran and Saudi Arabia.

It is hardly a question of time it's a question of teaching facts,known facts through observation and discovery. Religion has been around for a long time under different guises and different rituals that it does seem childish to even contemplate it seriously that is why this student protests. She thinks in logical terms that's why math's is of such interest to her and like me she finds people who believe in this rubbish quite devoid of reasoning, it's all belief.

I often wonder what I would say in a court of law when some moron shoves that book in front of me and says repeat after me, I would probably tell them the book means nothing to me which, in the USA would be like pleading guilty.

Just like any other large group of people, atheists come in all shapes and sounds.

For example, my neighbors are Christians. They hang their Christmas lights, go to church every Sunday, yet they are still able to come over to our house for dinner and bridge without discussing religion. I think they are more representative of average Christians than the people who scream on TV asking for money, or the well-dressed teens who ring my doorbell on Saturday morning to explain why my beliefs are wrong.

Similarly, most atheists do not find the need to proselytize. They get along with religious and non-religious people alike by respecting everyone's right to think and decide for themselves. However, the few who do speak loudly and publicly are sometimes the only atheists that some people even know exist.

There are plenty of atheists who are not trying to outlaw religion. They just do not want religion forced upon them. Do unto others, right?

I do not see anything wrong with requiring a moment of silence, as long as there is absolutely no pressure to direct the thoughts of the students or faculty during that moment. Since when can't a teacher tell the class to be quiet?

Could this be a "first step" towards re-instituting prayer in public schools? Of course it could. But it -isn't- prayer in school. Just as we can require gun registration without gun confiscation, we do not have enforce a 0% policy in order to prevent a 100% disaster.

I suggest a compromise based on the teacher's being the captain, if you will, of the classroom. If the teacher wants to start the class with a moment of silence, or not, let the teacher explain the reason why and accept the praise, or blame, for the result. The kids will figure out for themselves how they feel about it.

I also want to suggest that Miss Dawn, high school freshman, might have a tough row to hoe. Who cares what she came to school to learn. Perhaps home schooling would be just the thing for her since she has written her own syllabus with the cooperation of her parents.

This won't be the first time in life she will find that she's come to a party only to find it's not what she wanted.

I think one goes to school to learn how to learn...and how to get along with others and still make a place for oneself.

I remember a student many years ago who refused to do his assigned work in a mechanical drawing class since he'd already won his National Merit Scholarship based on grades earned up till that point. He made an F in drawing, because as he told me, his advisor, I don't need that grade. I tried to persuade him to do his best the rest of the semester to no avail.

He reported me to the principal and said that I threatened his scholarship. I sat quietly while the principal read me the Riot Act. At the end of this I said quietly, "I don't think he'll last very long at that college?"

Before Thanksgiving, a dean sat beside me in the teachers' cafeteria and told me that my advisee was back home...that he couldn't make it.

May order BE IMPOSED in a classroom despite children's natural proclivity to be disorderly? Perhaps speeding and running stop signs should be permitted since we all want to be free.

How free?

if there is a natural proclivity for disorder, I don't see it. Where I've been there is a strong embracing of the status quo, arbitrary procedure and order. In short, we are dead to the system until we are the product it wants us to be. Until those same people break from the system, and its molding influence, I don't see them as alive at all. Maybe it is naive, but I support anybody who runs against the ingrained, even if the monotony is inevitable, at least they try to live. Orders, repetition, organization, and normalcy, all are sought in the spirit of consistency and comfort, but they like anything else, offer no guarantee of enjoyment, no tendency for personal or societal success, unless you call what we have now a success.

Tim Kidd said
The problem here is, the most radical and extreme atheists are the ones most likely to associate themselves with the label. And in doing so, they give a very skewered picture and confirm a lot of negative stereotypes about all of us who are unbelievers. It's unfortunate, but little can be done about it.

I agree with this statement, the same way the fundamentalists might skew a person's view of their religion, the angry unreasonable atheists can skew the view of groups who don't hold a deity, because the title encourages the consideration of a group of people and not an individual basis, and because people define themselves by personal standards, these types of generalizations are highly detrimental. It goes back to an ability to be tolerant, and to avoid generalizations.

I knew this story would generate a lot of heated debate, and I was right. For what it's worth, here is my take...

I largely agree with those who conclude that fighting over "moment of silence" legislation is a waste of time and resources. In a perfect world, where the leftists and civil libertarians had billions of dollars and endless amounts of time to expend, I would say go for it. But given the limited budgets of most left-leaning organizations and individuals, it seems so wasteful.

That said, none of us should be too quick to judge. We are not in the situation personally. Being a teenager in our conformity obsessed culture is hard enough; I'd hate to see religion tacitly shoved in my face in school on top of everything else. And that is what all "moment of silence" laws amount to: sneaking school prayer in the back door, however minimally. Is it a huge deal? I don't think so, but I might feel differently were I an atheistic high school student.

As to the argument about the personalities of atheists, I think it is VERY important to distinguish between openly and actively atheistic individuals and passive atheists (along with agnostics, deists, secular humanists, etc.) In college, I was very much in the former group; today, I am very much in the latter. Back then, I was active in the Duluth chapter of Minnesota Atheists, went to conferences put on by FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation), the Atheist Alliance and the Council for Secular Humanism, started my own atheist/agnostic student group at my college and wrote weekly columns for my university newspaper on religion. I was quite active. And I was also militantly materialistic, scientistic and against even the mildest religious belief or spirituality.

Thus, from my own experience and in knowing MANY, MANY active atheists in Minnesota, I can say that yes, most (though not all) were narrow minded and puerile in their hatred of ALL religion and spirituality (not just fundamentalism). They also tended to elevate science to the status of a religion (and men like Dawkins to the status of demigods). In addition, they fetishized the Establishment Clause to the level of idolatry. And, as PJD stated, many were Ayn Rand loving social Darwinist types who reveled in the myth of "Enlightened Self-Interest". Indeed, one of the main reasons I lost interest in the atheist/freethought community was, as a lifelong socialist, I got sick of listening to endless diatribes about the glories of the free market and how lassiez-faire liberalism is the only truly rational political belief.

But active, overt atheists are not all atheists; not by a long shot. I still consider myself non-theistic (though I don't brandish the atheist label anymore), but I've come to appreciate many forms of liberal Christianity and the social gospel. My political/social beliefs are fair more important than my lack of religions belief (i.e., I'd take Dietrich Bonheffer over Ayn Rand any day). Furthermore, while I respect the scientific method in the abstract, I treat the actual practice of science as skeptically as I do religious practices. And I don't think every instance of religiosity in the public square requires an unyielding attack. Furthermore, most of my friends are atheistic/ agnostic/ freethinkers and hold similar beliefs as I do on all these matters.

The problem here is, the most radical and extreme atheists are the ones most likely to associate themselves with the label. And in doing so, they give a very skewered picture and confirm a lot of negative stereotypes about all of us who are unbelievers. It's unfortunate, but little can be done about it.

Tony,

So? There are lots of camels all the way in said tent. That's why it's good to study the liberal arts and humanities. Then you have many thoughts to strike fire as they move around your brain.

dcbeltway, are you willing to compromise your beliefs? if not, then why should others? your generalized remarks are bigoted.

Dear lobster, Camel's nose in the tent.

Dear bligh, No

Actually!!!I believe we could all stand momentS of silence to our own and others benefit. For example, I don't know who's an atheist...and I like it that way. Can you imagine a less inspiring/interesting conversation over tea or down at the corner bar than on why somebody's against something?

And I won't tell you where I am in my Christian spiritual pilgrimage...unless you're receptive. We all believe we're totally awesome, full of feeling and sensitivity, well-read, discerning...in fact, brilliant and just the way a person should be.

Now, pray tell what's wrong with silence? May the teacher MANDATE tests to those who don't believe in them? Can children REFUSE to read because they believe reading rots the brain and stymies social growth? May order BE IMPOSED in a classroom despite children's natural proclivity to be disorderly? Perhaps speeding and running stop signs should be permitted since we all want to be free.

How free?

So I guess we should boot the Muslim footwashing facilities out of our public campus?