quote:Evanston-Skokie School District 65 will ignore new legislation mandating a moment of silence in Illinois public schools after trying unsuccessfully to seek a waiver that would free the district from following the law, board members said.
After discussing it Monday night, five of the school board's seven members agreed the board should not force teachers in the district's 16 elementary and middle schools to observe the law, they said.
"We have no intention of either prohibiting or forcing compliance," said board member Katie Bailey.
It's nice to see a school board stand up for what's right, rather than just complying with a bad law. IMHO
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Does the law mandate a daily moment of silence? If so then I side with those concerned that it is just a way of sneaking prayer back into schools (just like Intelligent Design was a way of sneaking creationism back into schools). The justification that supporters of the law use, that a daily moment of silence would reduce school violence, sends my BS detector off the charts.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Having had a moment of silence in school as a kid, I never thought it was to pray. The teachers always seemed to use it to go over their notes. I figured the moment of silence was just a way to get us all to shut up, kinda like the quiet game that seemed to be my mom's favorite game of all time. So, I am pro-moment of silence.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Having had a moment of silence in school as a kid, I never thought it was to pray. The teachers always seemed to use it to go over their notes. I figured the moment of silence was just a way to get us all to shut up, kinda like the quiet game that seemed to be my mom's favorite game of all time. So, I am pro-moment of silence.
As an idea, it's fine. If a teacher decides to say "Kids, we're just going to have a few minutes every morning to be quiet and get ready for the day ahead", that would be fine. But the fact that they made a law to have this state mandated suggests that they may have other motives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. I live in a lovely, little bubble.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes. I live in a lovely, little bubble.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:...keep boisterous students calm and give students a chance to reflect before the school day.
Kids "reflect" at that age?
If I had to do it, I can't help but imagine I'd spend the whole silent time thinking "man, this is stupid."
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't always agree with OSC's political arguments, but I thought he made an amazingly good one about being against prayer in schools
The main point was that you can't single out one religion's version of prayer, so you'd have to do a watered down version that makes no one happy, even for those whose religions it most resembled. Instead, people who want kids at school to pray (really, their kids), should pray as a family because it will mean more to their children. Kids learn the pledge of allegiance before the definitions of the big words, and to me, the pledge feels empty.
Anyway, it didn't occur to me that a moment of silence is praying, but that makes sense. I usually just thought about nothing since the moment of silence came after the pledge. But, given that it's a moment of silence, the prayers stay in the heads of the children who make them- you're not forcing anyone to say anything.
And as an atheist, I have no problem standing there while other people say prayers to themselves, because they're not making me pray.
Is the pledge mandated by law?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes. I live in a lovely, little bubble.
A lovely little bubble called "Evanston".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Ah. Was confused. Danke.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
When I was in high school, Georgia instituted a moment of silence law that was obviously designed for prayer. A handful of students prayed ostentatiously; most people sat and stared (or slept). I organized my notebooks and got ready for class. I dislike the intent of those laws, but I think by and large they probably tend to be fairly unsuccessful.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For crying out loud, people who believe in praying frequently send their kids to school as well, I don't see how providing a moment of silence is anything close to a sneaky way to get prayer back in school. The reason school mandated praying was ruled unconstitutional was because it was mandated, not because praying is illegal in a school. A mandated moment of silence to me makes perfect sence for appeasing those who think prayer is important, as well as being beneficial to the students and parents who do not.
Why don't we just get rid of nap time in kindergarten because we know that's really just a secret plot by the buddhists to introduce extended meditation.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't see the problem with a moment of silence. There are plenty of people out there who may want to take a moment for prayer. Others are not forced to pray with them but must allow them to do so without interruption. For those who wish not to pray, they can take that moment to do as Megan did and "organize her notebook and get ready for class."
I'll probably get flammed for it, but I don't see the harm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'll probably get flammed for it, but I don't see the harm.
Why do you think you'll get flamed for this? That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me.
---
On the moment of silence issue, I'm not sure why people think that this is necessary. Can kids not pray at basically any point during the day? Mandating an official communal time for this seems unecessary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I pray dozens of times a day. Even "organized" prayer more than once. I do not expect everyone around me to be still while I do it.
This was true when I was still in school as well.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Is the pledge mandated by law?
I don't think there is a national policy on the pledge. In New Jersey I believe that no student may be forced to stand for the pledge. All students, however, have to be respectful during the pledge (that may be district policy, not state policy). At my high school the pledge is recited over the loud speaker so nobody says it anyways (we just stand up).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And if someone wished to take a few moments to play on their Gameboy, would a state mandate to allow them to do so be a problem? Everybody else can just take out their notebooks, or whatever.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For crying out loud, people who believe in praying frequently send their kids to school as well, I don't see how providing a moment of silence is anything close to a sneaky way to get prayer back in school. The reason school mandated praying was ruled unconstitutional was because it was mandated, not because praying is illegal in a school. A mandated moment of silence to me makes perfect sence for appeasing those who think prayer is important, as well as being beneficial to the students and parents who do not.
Why don't we just get rid of nap time in kindergarten because we know that's really just a secret plot by the buddhists to introduce extended meditation.
The issue, BB, is the government mandated part. They're mandating a moment of silence in which our students could be learning.
If the kids want to pray, or take a moment to be quiet, they can certainly do so as long as they don't disturb the class (or as long as the kid doesn't take a moment of silence right after being asked a question by the teacher, haha).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
In other words, "Teachers here is more that you must do. Teachers here is less time to actually do it in. Now don't bother us, we are negotiating with your _______ (fill in the blank with your own perjorative. One Dept of Ed leader from early in the present administration called it Terrorist) union that demands you get paid more money for some silly reasons."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, how would you feel if the government mandated an hour long "moment of silence" or perhaps several of them? Muslims, for example, pray five times a day, at least a couple would fall during the school day.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We had a daily moment of silence in elementary school. Generally we either did a little bit of homework from the previous day, or read, or some kids took a little mini-nap, it really didn't matter so long as you were quiet.
I don't think it really matters. I'm sure the teacher appreciated the little calm in the storm, but I highly doubt it served any serous function for the students. Anyone who was plotting violence against his or her fellow students just got a little more planning time every morning.
I have no problem with a moment of silence, but I think it's goofy and stupid that they made a law requiring it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
When I was in school, the moment of silence was 15 seconds long.
That wasn't enough to do squat.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If the moment of silence is school mandated, it is easier to enforce (cause a moment of silence is silly to a student, so a teacher doing it himself/herself would have difficulties). If it is 15 seconds, it is had to claim that much time is being wasted, esp if it really does shut the kids up. Since discipline issues are the number one time waster, if it decreased discipline problems, it would overall add more class time. Also, you can't have it be too long because then students will start getting antsy and the effect will be ruined. While they might be trying to allow prayer in the school, I think the discipline aspect should be explored before a judement is made. If it turns out to actually help calm the little monsters, then I would not object to it being a law. Students will find it silly so the concept needs support from the higher powers to work. I really want some one to do a study on this now. Instinctively, I think it would help discipline, but I could be wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, how would you feel if the government mandated an hour long "moment of silence" or perhaps several of them? Muslims, for example, pray five times a day, at least a couple would fall during the school day.
There is excess when it comes to any principle. The problem I have with students just being able to pray whenever they want to is that that time does not always exist. When a parent teaches their child to pray often they might say before lunch at school, or say before recess or perhaps before a major test. Who is going to help in the parent's wishes? An elementary student clearly would be likely apt to forget to pray in the absence of reminders. Students in elementary school do not often have time to themselves, all their activities and the time with which they have to do them are decided for them.
Besides that, moments of silence are good IMO. It's good to just stop the hectic schedule of the day and give kids time to take a breather and look over their materials. Nobody is asking for an hour. If there was somebody asking for an hour, deal with it when that comes up.
If there was a Muslim student in a class, I would ask the teachers to provide a simple room and be aware of a Muslim child's prayer schedule, as well as indicating where East is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The issue, BB, is the government mandated part. They're mandating a moment of silence in which our students could be learning.
If this is the essence of your complaint, I'm surprised you support such blatant disregard of the law by a public official for this reason.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there should be some "free" time built into the schedule. Lunch, recess, study hall and so forth. I don't think that having a school wide "moment" will accomplish that. And it certainly is unconstitutional if the purpose is to "remind" students to pray. Parents may want their kids to brush their teeth after lunch, who is going to help in those parents' wishes?
So for the Muslim students...are we going to have school-wide moments of silence while they pray?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't even recall having moments of silence in school, and I went to school in the south. We said the pledge and sang, "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".
???
edit: That said, had I had them I highly doubt I would have prayed. I did that in the biblically-suggested place: at home in my room.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The issue, BB, is the government mandated part. They're mandating a moment of silence in which our students could be learning.
If this is the essence of your complaint, I'm surprised you support such blatant disregard of the law by a public official for this reason.
I support the blatant disregard of any laws that I think are wrong or go against other more important laws or freedoms.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'll probably get flammed for it, but I don't see the harm.
Why do you think you'll get flamed for this? That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me.
---
On the moment of silence issue, I'm not sure why people think that this is necessary. Can kids not pray at basically any point during the day? Mandating an official communal time for this seems unecessary.
I have been flamed in the past for a conservative view. For the most part, I stay away from political and religious threads. I don't like people looking down on me for my beliefs. I don't look down on others for theirs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The issue, BB, is the government mandated part. They're mandating a moment of silence in which our students could be learning.
If this is the essence of your complaint, I'm surprised you support such blatant disregard of the law by a public official for this reason.
I support the blatant disregard of any laws that I think are wrong or go against other more important laws or freedoms.
Then there's more to this issue than you stated in the post that I quoted, because that doesn't invoke anything about freedom or other laws.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that there should be some "free" time built into the schedule. Lunch, recess, study hall and so forth. I don't think that having a school wide "moment" will accomplish that. And it certainly is unconstitutional if the purpose is to "remind" students to pray. Parents may want their kids to brush their teeth after lunch, who is going to help in those parents' wishes?
So for the Muslim students...are we going to have school-wide moments of silence while they pray?
If enough parents are that concerned about teeth hygiene I think the school should create some time for them to brush their teeth. It's up to each state.
There is nothing unconstitutional about teachers observing a standard moment of silence/reflection and saying, "Those who wish to pray, or ponder, or just rest themselves can take advantage of this time."
If a school decides they don't want a moment of silence then let democracy decide it.
If the state government passes a mandated moment of silence I don't think that in this instance it behooves a teacher to refuse to follow the law. If they genuinely feel that it's unconstitutional and immoral to enforce such a mandate they can quit their jobs or challenge it in court. Teachers who ignore a legislative bill that was passed by the state legislature should be prosecuted for refusing to do as they are instructed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Then there's more to this issue than you stated in the post that I quoted, because that doesn't invoke anything about freedom or other laws.
Or there is less to this issue than he stated in his post.
quote:The issue, BB, is the government mandated part. They're mandating a moment of silence.
That's all you really need. Why on earth should a moment of silence be mandated by law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or there is less to this issue than he stated in his post.
I was addressing what he said.
quote:That's all you really need. Why on earth should a moment of silence be mandated by law?
Why on earth should that be considered unconstitutional, though? And if it's not unconstitutional, why should an elected or appointed official charged with carrying out state educational policy gainsay it?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Why on earth should that be considered unconstitutional, though? And if it's not unconstitutional, why should an elected or appointed official charged with carrying out state educational policy gainsay it?
It doesn't need to be unconstitutional in order to impinge on freedom. If the state mandated that students jump on their left leg for 15 seconds, that impinges on a freedom. And it's completely pointless, other than to force students to obey.
The school has stated that they believe that the law is motivated by the desire to introduce prayer into the classroom. I don't know the players, but if they have evidence to lead them to that conclusion, then the refusal to obey the law forces the state to provide justification for the law (unless the state ignores the school).
If there is no justification for it, but it's not unconstitutional, is it reasonable for a legislative body to pass laws that impinge on freedom merely on a whim?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If there is no justification for it, but it's not unconstitutional, is it reasonable for a legislative body to pass laws that impinge on freedom merely on a whim?
It might not be reasonable. I haven't at all argued that it is.
But it is official state educational policy (if the article is accurate). And if it's constitutional, then an elected or appointed official whose duty it is to carry out such policy should carry it out.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Even if it is inspired by religious people, why does that matter? Keep in mind that the amount of time being asked for is 0.1% of the school day (based on the moment being 30 seconds and 6 hours of instruction time). The act itself does nothing to establish religion or show favor to any religion. If the majority of parents wanted one minute for their children to brush their teeth, would it be wrong to pass a law telling teacher to provide one minute for teeth brushing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think constitutionality is even an issue here. I didn't read the exact wording of the law, but I'm guessing it's simply a moment of silence, which I think impinges on no one's freedom. You could argue that school in general, especially mandated schooling, is an impinging of freedom. That opens an insanely big can of worms. I think it's a stupid rule.
I think this is a case where such a decision should be made locally at a schoolboard, that is specifically what they are there for, to decide matters like this. This shouldn't have been decided at the state level.
But our system does work, and I think a candidate running for a state senate or house seat in the next election could make an issue of this and the voters should accordingly vote, and then this could be overturned, or if enough people voice their concerns, it could be overturned sooner.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Honestly, the only emotion I feel towards this is confusion. I don't care much one about it, I just think to myself "why? Was there some crisis in our schools until this moment, that has now been resolved with this wonderful, necessary law?"
Assuming the motives behind it have nothing to do with prayer, I don't see the purpose to spend time introducing new legislature over this. Kids don't need a 15 second break in the day; recess and lunch exist for a reason.
Maybe I'm crazy, I just don't...see why this even made it to the state level Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It might not be reasonable. I haven't at all argued that it is.
No, you haven't. That's why I asked.
quote:an elected or appointed official whose duty it is to carry out such policy should carry it out.
This comes down to your sense of respect for law. I don't share it to the same extent. This country was founded by people who refused to carry out certain laws.
quote:You could argue that school in general, especially mandated schooling, is an impinging of freedom.
It is, but it's a well justified impingment. And parents do have other options, such as home schooling.
quote:I think this is a case where such a decision should be made locally at a schoolboard
I think it's a decision that should be made by the teacher. The only reason given by the supporters is that it could help reduce behavior problems in the school. That's certainly no justification if the teachers aren't having behavior problems. Teachers generally have their own beginning of class rituals, chores, writing down the homework, going over last night's homework, etc. designed to get the class to settle down and focused. What works for one teacher is often completely different from another teacher. Mandating this moment of silence may work wonderfully for some teachers, and cause havoc for others. But if it works, the teacher can implement it themselves. There's no reason for the state to impose it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Again: Suppose the state mandated a Gameboy moment. Would that be all right? And how is it any different?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Again: Suppose the state mandated a Gameboy moment. Would that be all right? And how is it any different?
If the state legislature voted it in, it would be a reflection of the will of the people who voted those people into office. If people didn't like it they can pressure their representatives to change it.
If you send your child to a government run school you accept that the government to an extent controls how that school runs. If for whatever reason the government passed a law requiring students to play on their gameboys for an hour everyday, you can try to get it repealed in the legislature, or you can remove your child from a public school and enroll them in a private school that more closely fits what you want in a school system. You can also home school them, an increasingly popular option nowadays.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute, do people expect to be taken seriously when they object to this on the grounds that it's "taking up time when our kids could be learning"?
Give me a freakin' break, guys. It's less than a bloody half a minute. Once. There are many other reasonable objections to a government-mandated moment-of-silence requirement. That is not remotely one of them.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Rakeesh, I may be missing something but the only person's comment who comes close to making the "taking up time when our kids could be learning" argument is Dan_raven's and I don't think thats the point he was trying to make.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
All through school we had a moment of silence. After the pledge, whoever was leading assembly (in elementary school) or was on the loudspeaker (in middle and high school) would say, "Please join me in a moment of silent meditation." It would last somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds. I don't remember anyone objecting to that, no did it seem out of place at all. (This is in a liberal town in a liberal state (Connecticut) and I'm not a religious person.) Occasionally there would be a suggestion for something/someone to think about, if someone had recently passed away or if it was an important anniversary or date, but that was maybe two or three times a year.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a minute, do people expect to be taken seriously when they object to this on the grounds that it's "taking up time when our kids could be learning"?
Give me a freakin' break, guys. It's less than a bloody half a minute. Once. There are many other reasonable objections to a government-mandated moment-of-silence requirement. That is not remotely one of them.
I didn't argue it, but I certainly made the comment.
First of all, last I checked the law didn't define what a 'moment' was.
Secondly, if it's so insignificant, why have it at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Secondly, if it's so insignificant, why have it at all?
If it's so insignifigant, why worry about it so much? Or do you get equally frustrated when there are laws on the books about not letting cows chew cud on Sundays?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Secondly, if it's so insignificant, why have it at all?
If it's so insignifigant, why worry about it so much? Or do you get equally frustrated when there are laws on the books about not letting cows chew cud on Sundays?
Because if it's so insignificant, but the government is making a law about it, it occurs to me that it's actually not insignificant to them.
If the government was making laws about cows chewing cud, then the government is worried about cows chewing cud for some reason. And if they just made the law for no real reason, just because, then they should be impeached for wasting their time and tax-payer money on creating stupid, insignificant laws.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If you believed that playing a Gameboy for 30 seconds a day at the start of class would make your kid learn better, wouldn't you want to insure that you child had that opportunity? Would you want to have to argue every time your student got a new teacher for this?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Secondly, if it's so insignificant, why have it at all?
I don't think it is insignificant to the parents. It seems like a simple and sensible compromise to me:
Some parents want their kids to pray in school, and know that they probably won't unless explicitly directed to. And other parents don't want their kids to pray in school. Having a moment of silence reminds those kids who want to pray to do so, while not forcing other kids to join in. It makes everyone happy; what is wrong with this compromise? Surely it's not the 15 seconds of time it takes up....
In all seriousness, schools are charged with the well-being of the child as a whole. That's a tricky task when many parents include character and spirituality as part of their child's well-being, but disagree on what health in those areas consists of. Giving the kids an opportunity to decide for themselves how/whether to promote their spiritual well-being seems like an effective compromise.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If the kids have to be reminded to pray then it clearly isn't that important to them anyways. Even if it is, it is certainly not the school's job to remind them about it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If the teacher is talking, the student is supposed to be listening, not praying.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Give me a break. No student in the history of the world has paid 100% attention for 100% of all class time. The idea that taking a minute or two to pray silently during class is going to disrupt a student's ability to learn is absurd in the extreme.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, but it DOES reduce learning time, so the student will learn about 180-360 minutes less of material per year.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
That statistic isn't really meaningful. It would be much worse if a student missed 200 minutes of class by being sick for a week then if they missed 200 minutes of class by praying for a short amount of time each class period for a whole year.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If the kids have to be reminded to pray then it clearly isn't that important to them anyways.
Replace the word "pray" with "study" and I think you'll see what's wrong with that logic. Kids don't always do things that are important for them to do, on their own, especially if their time is already filled with other planned activities.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If the kids have to be reminded to pray then it clearly isn't that important to them anyways.
Replace the word "pray" with "study" and I think you'll see what's wrong with that logic. Kids don't always do things that are important for them to do, on their own, especially if their time is already filled with other planned activities.
I was talking about what kids might think is important. You're talking about what you think is important. Regardless, Its not the school's responsibility to force kids to study either. What kids do outside of the classroom is the parent's responsibility.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
In high school and middle school, our pledge/moment of silence always happened in homeroom, that ten minutes a day where we sat there and got our attendance taken. Or got reportcards. Or received schoolwide handouts.
No one lost anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ditto.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The only times I've had moments of silence in my classroom has been after some kind of catastrophe: Katrina, the tsunami, when a cafeteria worker's husband was killed in a car accident, when a student of mine was in a car accident and her younger sister was killed. In each case, I felt very moved by the feeling that pervaded the school. Also, in each case, the school then mobilized to provide assistance to the victims in each case.
I don't pray, of course, but those moments of silence were very powerful. I think that if the moment of silence were a daily ritual, it would lose that power.
As far as the waste of time issue, I used to sub in a school were the assistant principal would play 15 seconds worth of some song, in order to build school spirit. The song could be anything, but R-E-S-P-E-C-T would be typical of the idea. Typically it was something he knew from his past, not something popular with the kids, and the speaker system was so bad you couldn't hear it well enough to understand the intended message half the time.
I didn't know the assistant principal, and one time I was in the teacher's lounge talking with everyone there, and I told them that I found the 15 second song annoying, because instructional time is too valuable to waste on such a thing. It turned out that the guy sitting at the table that I thought was a janitor was the assistant principal. He never engaged me in conversation again.
The moment of silence might not be as annoying as the song, because it's quiet, and I might be able to get something done at that time. But I wonder if I would get in trouble if I told my students that I expected them to silently write down the homework during the moment of silence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: In high school and middle school, our pledge/moment of silence always happened in homeroom, that ten minutes a day where we sat there and got our attendance taken. Or got reportcards. Or received schoolwide handouts.
No one lost anything.
I went to a Christian Private school with not only 15-20 minutes of homeroom time daily, we had mandatory chapel for 30 minutes once a week. I'd like to think I got through the standard curriculum for a school just fine.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, I'm sure you would like to think that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do you have to be such a jerk, KoM?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* It's statements like that that illustrate that at times your contempt for religion is quite a lot greater than your respect for reason and rationality.
You've no way of knowing whether or not he did get through the standard curriculum or not, but you're willing to assume through insinuation that he did not. Just because the time mentioned was chapel time.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I don't see how a law forcing students to be quiet for a reasonable amount of time can be harmful at all. Who cares what the motives are. It's the action that counts. It's quite time. How does the action encourage anyone to pray?
It would only encourage someone to pray if they had already associated a moment of silence with prayer in their own mind.
Even if the motivation to allow a moment of silence was to "sneak prayer back into school" I don't see how it actually accomplishes anything towards that goal.
In my opinion it isn't an issue at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, I'm sure you would like to think that.
I'm sure you're sure that I'd like to think that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:
quote:
quote: Yes, I'm sure you would like to think that.
I'm sure you're sure that I'd like to think that.
I'm not sure you're sure that he's sure that you'd like to think that. I think you're bluffing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:
quote:
quote: Yes, I'm sure you would like to think that.
I'm sure you're sure that I'd like to think that.
I'm not sure you're sure that he's sure that you'd like to think that. I think you're bluffing.
Oh do you?
--------
KOM: Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but it's ironic to me that while you are so determined to destroy the hold organized religion has on people's hearts, you yourself drive me away from atheism as no sermon ever could.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Sigh. I can only assume that KoM does not HONESTLY believe that having 30 minutes of chapel a day made you less informed about the curriculum. It is possible that your complete school day was 30 minutes longer than a normal school day, or that on average you spent 30 minutes more doing homework than a student at a normal school.
Though I think it is important to remember that this thread is not about our opinions of one another's religious beliefs. So let's stop flaming. k?
My stance on the law is that, without a justification better than "we felt like it might be good" that a moment of silence would in fact be beneficial in some way to the educational process, such a law seems unhelpful, except to carry out such a study to get that information.
In the spirit of civil disobedience, it seems that teachers could disobey this law as long as they are willing to endure the penalty. Principals too could disobey or enforce the law as they see fit, as I have my doubts that police patrol Illinois school hallways. Of course this then brings up the question: why should they disobey a law, hopefully those higher-ups would be making beneficial laws, but I know that I would probably not enforce such a law without some better reasoning other than "we told you so" and if I DID have to, I would encourage people to do something better than sitting there with the time spent "in silence"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have no problem with the 'moment of silence; dealieo, but only because I'm willfully blind to the obvious intent of those promoting it. Ignoring this allows you to take the practice at face value and ignore potential issues of wedge strategies or excessive entanglement!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
My stance on the law is that, without a justification better than "we felt like it might be good" that a moment of silence would in fact be beneficial in some way to the educational process, such a law seems unhelpful, except to carry out such a study to get that information.
The law was passed with the reasoning that they believed (with only anectdoctal evidence) that a moment of silence would improve discipline problems. I think this would actually be an interesting study, assuming you could set up appropriate controls and such.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
String, while I also share your doubts that this law will accomplish much in regards to prayer, I must respectfully disagree with you that the motive is meaningless. I live in Illinois, and to me the reasoning and motives behind what my state decides to put into law are just as important as the actual effects. If people were trying to sneak prayer or one favored religion into public schools, I'd like to know about it.
I'm not saying things like this are directly harmful to our public schools; I don't have enough information to make a judgment yet. However I am saying that this raises some healthy suspicion and that it would benefit me in the future to understand more about the people currently drafting legislature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Saephon, where are you in Illinois. Did you contact your state representative/senators?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:KOM: Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but it's ironic to me that while you are so determined to destroy the hold organized religion has on people's hearts, you yourself drive me away from atheism as no sermon ever could.
I've expressed (aproximately) the same sentiment to KoM, but he willfully ingnores it. The sad part is that our belief systems are essentially identical.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't think he's got the emotional maturity to care. All I see from him on the issue is "na na na boo boo, you can't stop me, stick your head in poo poo." His behavior is probably the most effective argument against pure atheism I've seen on this site. This opinion is coming from me, and I am less than a big fan of most organized religions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I don't think he's got the emotional maturity to care. All I see from him on the issue is "na na na boo boo, you can't stop me, stick your head in poo poo." His behavior is probably the most effective argument against pure atheism I've seen on this site. This opinion is coming from me, and I am less than a big fan of most organized religions.
Atheism doesn't make someone mature or polite. It's not supposed to. It's merely the position on a single question.
What's pure atheism? (As opposed, I suppose, to diluted atheism.)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Roughly, I would define pure atheism as the denial of the existence of both souls and God or gods. Roughly.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
[nitpick] Probably easier just to say that atheism is the disbelief in supernatural beings. [/nitpick]
EDIT: I like the use of "disbelief" because it sounds friendlier than "denial"
[ November 13, 2007, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Man this is rough. I did say roughly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Roughly, I would define pure atheism as the denial of the existence of both souls and God or gods. Roughly.
Well then, I will gladly help you refine it.
It isn't a denial. Denial implies that you believe it, but just don't want to accept it. It's a disbelief or lack of a belief. Some will go as far as saying they actively believe there is no god, but all you have to do to be an atheist is not have a belief in a god. (I know, the differences are subtle.)
Now, the reason I would object to including the disbelief in souls is only because theism is the belief in a god, and atheism is the lack of that. Technically many Buddhists are atheist, as they don't believe in a god, but they do have spiritual beliefs.
That being said, I would say that the majority of atheists also have no belief in the supernatural. But not always.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: String, while I also share your doubts that this law will accomplish much in regards to prayer, I must respectfully disagree with you that the motive is meaningless. I live in Illinois, and to me the reasoning and motives behind what my state decides to put into law are just as important as the actual effects. If people were trying to sneak prayer or one favored religion into public schools, I'd like to know about it.
I'm not saying things like this are directly harmful to our public schools; I don't have enough information to make a judgment yet. However I am saying that this raises some healthy suspicion and that it would benefit me in the future to understand more about the people currently drafting legislature.
Actually I think it's pretty safe to assume that the "moment of silence law" is religiously motivated. If someone wanted to be sure they could check and see who was behind pushing for it. I just don't think it does anything to accomplish putting prayer back into school. A moment of silence could be used to pray, but I don't think teachers would be allowed to suggest it, as imo they shouldn't be able too. If a non-praying student were to observe another student praying, this might encourage him/her to pray, but, again imo, I don't think that amounts to the same thing as direct suggestion which some people believe could be used to subtly pressure students into praying. I think a moment of silence law is tolerable, and does more good than harm by itself. handling an action by it's motivation seems a little reactionary.
I don't think prayer has a cupcakes chance on my plate of making a return to schools, so it's best to take this one at face value. Like I said, I think it stands to do more harm than good. Just what I think though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Another question we should address, which we've taken for granted up to this point, is whether or not prayer is a good thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is that a question we should address? It cannot possibly be answered effectively for this conversation, and each person's answer is entirely dependant on their views on other questions.
I too think it's safe to assume that the moment of silence law is religiously motivated. However, I think that equally so, a "moment of silence" law is an offering for all religious students to take advantage of, not merely Christians. Furthermore, it does not say, "Students must use this time to reflect and interact with their deity of choice."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
It's a question we should address because if it doesn't do anything positive then we shouldn't promote it.
quote:I too think it's safe to assume that the moment of silence law is religiously motivated. However, I think that equally so, a "moment of silence" law is an offering for all religious students to take advantage of, not merely Christians. Furthermore, it does not say, "Students must use this time to reflect and interact with their deity of choice."
Which would be a wonderful sentiment, if everyone believed in a deity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We shouldn't promote it whether it does anything good or not, if by "we" you're refering to the public schools.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: We shouldn't promote it whether it does anything good or not, if by "we" you're refering to the public schools.
True. However, if there was good evidence that praying was able to effect the real world...I might get behind that.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I think praying is a good thing, but I think believing that those prayers actually hold some sway on the world apart from changing your own mental attitude and the attitudes of those around you, about you, is not a good thing. Note, I think praying is good not because of its religious affiliation, but because of its content of reflection, empathy, and responsibility.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which would be a wonderful sentiment, if everyone believed in a deity.
So those who don't are harmed...how, exactly? I'm not going to take seriously, "They lose 15 seconds of learning," as a reasonable objection, because frankly it's crap. Or are they harmed even by things that benefit the religious?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, would it be harmful if it were half and hour?
If so, 15 seconds is still harmful, just on a different scale. It is a camel's nose precendent.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Which would be a wonderful sentiment, if everyone believed in a deity.
So those who don't are harmed...how, exactly? I'm not going to take seriously, "They lose 15 seconds of learning," as a reasonable objection, because frankly it's crap. Or are they harmed even by things that benefit the religious?
It's very simple. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
Except for having their first amendment rights violated, however slightly, they aren't harmed at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If so, 15 seconds is still harmful, just on a different scale. It is a camel's nose precendent.
Well, actually some things that are harmful for longer periods aren't for brief intervals. Recess and lunch being two obvious examples. But aside from the strange idea that every slope must by necessity be a slippery one...how are the non-religious harmed by a moment of silence?
Are they forced to talk during the moment of silence?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If so, 15 seconds is still harmful, just on a different scale. It is a camel's nose precendent.
Well, actually some things that are harmful for longer periods aren't for brief intervals. Recess and lunch being two obvious examples. But aside from the strange idea that every slope must by necessity be a slippery one...how are the non-religious harmed by a moment of silence?
Are they forced to talk during the moment of silence?
The moment of silence itself? It's just stupid, irrelevant and a waste of time. (Yes, even 15 seconds is a waste of time.)
It's implication is especially harmful...if the government can mandate a moment of silence, it's potentially easier for them to mandate a moment of prayer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So those who don't are harmed...how, exactly?
By having their teachers imply that they should be praying?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the reasons it is important for some people to have this mandated by law are the same reasons that it is important for some of us not to have this mandated by law.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the reasons it is important for some people to have this mandated by law are the same reasons that it is important for some of us not to have this mandated by law.
How so?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because the people pushing this are attempting to introduce prayer into the public schools. They are mandating "space" for people to pray.
This "push" should be met with an equal and opposite reaction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be clear, prayer is public school is definitely not a problem. Kids are free and even welcome to pray throughout the school day. Establishing an official, mandated time for prayer seems to only make sense as an attempt to pressure kids who wouldn't otherwise be praying to pray or at least feel like they should be (or that the social expectation is that they should), to plant a flag for Christians, or as part of a wedge strategy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's just stupid, irrelevant and a waste of time.
Thank you for speaking what you're really thinking. I don't mind people thinking that prayer is stupid, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Let's just not pretend that the 'stupid and irrelevant' objections aren't just as much there as the whopping less than a minute's worth of time 'wasted'.
quote:It's implication is especially harmful...if the government can mandate a moment of silence, it's potentially easier for them to mandate a moment of prayer.
This is only persuasive if you already disapprove of the government mandating a moment of prayer. Which, by the way, I do, too. But 'moment of silence' is not equivalent to 'moment of prayer'.
-----------
quote:I think that the reasons it is important for some people to have this mandated by law are the same reasons that it is important for some of us not to have this mandated by law.
I agree. There's certainly a lot of history behind this, and a lot of resentment (and satisfaction, depending on where you're sitting) at the momentum of history behind this sort of thing.
quote:Establishing an official, mandated time for prayer seems to only make sense as an attempt to pressure kids who wouldn't otherwise be praying to pray or at least feel like they should be (or that the social expectation is that they should), to plant a flag for Christians, or as part of a wedge strategy.
I don't remember the specific language of the issue in question, but I do not agree that establishing a brief moment of silence is equivalent to establishing a moment of prayer. Nor do I agree that establishing such a moment would create any meaningful social pressure: my experience, at least, is that religious practices played almost zero role in the daily routines of students. For example, kids who didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance (sometimes I was one of them) didn't get any crap about it...quite the other way around, in fact.
I also think it's being assumed that this is some sort of Christian expansion scheme, when that is far from obvious either. Unless it's impossible for a Christian lawmaker to legislate for a moment of silence without that being true, that is.
quote:By having their teachers imply that they should be praying?
Ultimately I am not convinced that the mere presence of a moment of silence does so. The specific teachers, on the other hand, may very well do so...and if and when that happens, they should be disciplined accordingly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, why do you think that this 15 seconds was so important that people pushed to make it law?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's just stupid, irrelevant and a waste of time.
Thank you for speaking what you're really thinking. I don't mind people thinking that prayer is stupid, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Let's just not pretend that the 'stupid and irrelevant' objections aren't just as much there as the whopping less than a minute's worth of time 'wasted'.
I was referring to the moment of silence being stupid, irrelevant and a waste of time.
But prayer is also a waste of time, in my humble opinion. Though I do appreciate the sentiment that usually accompanies it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, why do you think that this 15 seconds was so important that people pushed to make it law?
Lots of people feel it's quite important to get some time for religion in the single biggest chunk of students spend on any one set of activities. But unless we're going to start scrutinizing the motivations of everyone who pushes for certain laws, and rejecting religious motivations, that doesn't make much difference. Someone might, for example, push for more treatment options as opposed to prison time for drug offenses and do so for religious reasons. We don't discount their support and motivations then.
---------- Javert,
quote:I was referring to the moment of silence being stupid, irrelevant and a waste of time.
But prayer is also a waste of time, in my humble opinion. Though I do appreciate the sentiment that usually accompanies it.
Appreciating sentiment is nice. I appreciate the sentiment behind the belief ancient Greeks had for thinking a pack of gods lounged atop Olympus...but I still think it was pretty stupid. Or foolish, or ignorant, let's choose our (for these purposes) synonym.
Or do you not feel prayer is stupid? I won't be upset if you say 'yes'-I don't actually care what you think about prayer, so long as you admit it. I'm trying to imagine a circumstance where prayer would be a 'waste of time' without being stupid.
Let's see...there could be no supernatural being at all, in which case prayer is a waste of time-and talking to something which isn't there is pretty dumb. Or it could be that whatever supernatural being is there, either isn't listening or simply doesn't care. Same thing. Or it could be wrong to try and communicate with whichever supernatural being is there...
*sigh* This is a disagreement I've had with atheists before. I'll just drop it. It never really goes anywhere.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If prayer doesn't work, people might pray for god to cure AIDS in Africa. Waste of time? Yes. Stupid? I don't know if I would call it that. Certainly the person's heart is in the right place. And the average person could do little to personally cure AIDS in Africa.
Again, at least their hearts are in the right place.
Praying for a new car...that would be stupid. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
Whether or not something is nice has nothing to do with whether or not it is smart or stupid. I don't think ancient Greeks were bad.
Why would praying for a new car be stupid when praying for a cure for AIDS isn't?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unless it's impossible for a Christian lawmaker to legislate for a moment of silence without that being true, that is.
The reason these suspicions arise is because the justifications used for the moment of silence do not fit with the proposed statewide mandate. A moment of silence is something for school districts to experiment with, not for the state to mandate. The fact that the lawmakers want a statewide mandate suggests an ulterior motive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The reason these suspicions arise is because the justifications used for the moment of silence do not fit with the proposed statewide mandate. A moment of silence is something for school districts to experiment with, not for the state to mandate. The fact that the lawmakers want a statewide mandate suggests an ulterior motive.
That doesn't make sense to me. Statewide mandate !=ulterior motive. It's a common method of dealing with any education proposals nowadays.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Lots of people feel it's quite important to get some time for religion in the single biggest chunk of students spend on any one set of activities.
As has been noted numerous times in this thread, there's plenty of time for prayer and other religious activites in the school day.
This isn't about getting time for religion, it is a thinly veiled attempt to establish a governmentally mandated "prayer time".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Whether or not something is nice has nothing to do with whether or not it is smart or stupid.
Unless it is smart to be nice. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Lots of people feel it's quite important to get some time for religion in the single biggest chunk of students spend on any one set of activities.
As has been noted numerous times in this thread, there's plenty of time for prayer and other religious activites in the school day.
This isn't about getting time for religion, it is a thinly veiled attempt to establish a governmentally mandated "prayer time".
There is plenty of time in the day for prayer and other similar activities, but beyond the mandated moment of silence, there is no attempt to actually set aside a reasonable amount of time for those things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If the student feels the need enough, they'll make time for prayer/meditation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There is plenty of time in the day for prayer and other similar activities, but beyond the mandated moment of silence, there is no attempt to actually set aside a reasonable amount of time for those things.
How long is a reasonable amount of time? Seems to me that that any moment of silence that secures a "reasonable amount of time" beyond what is a available already would fall into the "so long it interferes with teaching" category.
edit: A student can at most times during the day take a minute or so to pray. If your complaint is not that there isn't enough time, but that the schools aren't officially setting aside a public time to pray, well, that's basically my complaint.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)