Now It's Student Led Prayer at Football Games

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not sure you have the facts straight. So lets look ....

Church of Satan - Wikipedia

Do All Satanists Believe the Same Thing?

now that last one is very interesting and some what telling of what human do with religion. You trying to convey which are the real satanists and which aren't is like me trying to say i have the authority to know which of the 30 thousand + denominations of Christianity is the true way. Even the Judaism has denominations. This is one of the main reasons why i see religion as just a mental concept of humanity.

Still lets look at the fist set of principles from Lavey.
Now I'm not going to laud the nobility and selflessness of these tenets which Levay penned but I don't see anywhere that says things like , kill non virgin brides, kill homosexuals, kill unruly sons, kill any neighbor that tries to sell you on other faiths, take slaves from foreign tribes (especially the young girls), skeptics cant be good people, women should be silent in church, women should have no authority over men, and (my favorite) every one who does not believe in the faith (whether acting evil or not) will be tortured forever equally. However, if you truly repent after a life of evil you can still go to heaven.
In all fairness there are a number of good things said in the bible as well. My favorite is the one about not concerning oneself with the speck in another's eye when the log is still in yours (or mine to be fair)
My point is satanism deserves just as many rights as any Judeo-Christian religion. As long as they're not breaking laws as a part of their "faith" then they should not be excluded from invocations if we are to be a fair and just society.

I prefer to go to original source documents rather than Wikipedia. LaVey was the person who defined Satanism. You will find a quote by him, and a summary of beliefs from the website of the Church of Satan WHICH HE FOUNDED, on post #222. The tenets of the Satanic Temple are on post #221. You can see clearly that they do not match up with what LaVey defines as Satanism. It's like someone coming along and setting up a denomination called "The Christian Church" which doesn't believe that Jesus died for people's sins.

 

[loganonekenobi]

I prefer to go to original source documents rather than Wikipedia. LaVey was the person who defined Satanism. You will find a quote by him, and a summary of beliefs from the website of the Church of Satan WHICH HE FOUNDED, on post #222. The tenets of the Satanic Temple are on post #221. You can see clearly that they do not match up with what LaVey defines as Satanism. It's like someone coming along and setting up a denomination called "The Christian Church" which doesn't believe that Jesus died for people's sins.

please give me this site because i did look up the satanic church founded by Lavey. I dont see what you are pointing to. even so my point is that religions are like philosophies. they are man made tools of the mind and like other tools they are changed as needed or wanted. My original argument is that the satanist have no less right than any other religions. Nor should they have any more rights. I wouldnt aprove of a satanic pray said over the loud speaker and i dont think the supreme court would either.

 

[paarsurrey]

.

"An OH School District Wrongly Thinks Student-Led Loudspeaker Prayers Are Legal
​

Earlier this year, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote a letter to the West Branch Local School District in Ohio because prayers were being recited over the loudspeaker at school-sponsored events. That’s obviously illegal, and the District agreed to put a stop to it by replacing all those prayers with a moment of silence.

Then they backtracked. On August 20, the school board voted to allow a “limited open forum” at school events. In theory, that means students could lead prayers (which is always legal). But in practice, the District figured that was the loophole they needed to exploit in order to continue the loudspeaker prayers. They didn’t understand that students who decide on their own to pray to Jesus still don’t have the legal right to use the school’s resources to broadcast that prayer.

According to schools Superintendent Timothy Saxton, the addendum “helps us more clearly define and implement our policy allowing student-led voluntary invocations before events. The board felt this resolution gives us more direction as a district and administrative team for future challenges.”

Saxton in an email Thursday praised the board on its action.

“I applaud the board’s decision as it has taken a clear stand and feels that the tradition of allowing (prayer) before home varsity events is something that truly matters to our students and the West Branch Local School District’s strong faith-based community,” he said.
​

Make no mistake: This was all about religion, and letting students use the loudspeaker to promote their religious views at school events was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s already happened. Last Friday night, there was a Christian prayer said over the loudspeakers before a football game. The public address announcer said it wasn’t sponsored by the school, but that’s really an irrelevant remark. It was like fine print that no one was ever going to see.

That’s the argument FFRF’s legal fellow Christopher Line made in a letter sent to the District on Friday:

Establishing a “limited public forum” to ensure that students will pray before games, and then including a disclaimer that this is not sponsored by the school does not make this practice legal… The Supreme Court has specifically struck down invocations given over the loudspeaker at public school athletic events, even when students-led.
​

The school has to decide what’s more important: Pushing Jesus on everybody (and dealing with the inevitable lawsuit), or saying no to the prayers and reminding students they can all talk to God silently and telepathically anytime they want. Hell, even if they want to do it vocally and for show, they can do it in the parking lot before the enter. The District shouldn’t be helping them out.

This isn’t complicated. At least it wouldn’t be if the school board gave a damn about following the law."
source​

*sigh* They just don't get it...............Or is it that they don't want to get it? In either case, STUPIDITY AGAIN REIGNS.

.​

"An OH School District Wrongly Thinks Student-Led Loudspeaker Prayers Are Legal"

It is not necessary to use loudspeaker for praying salat in Islam, it could be done silently.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

.

"An OH School District Wrongly Thinks Student-Led Loudspeaker Prayers Are Legal
​

Earlier this year, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote a letter to the West Branch Local School District in Ohio because prayers were being recited over the loudspeaker at school-sponsored events. That’s obviously illegal, and the District agreed to put a stop to it by replacing all those prayers with a moment of silence.

Then they backtracked. On August 20, the school board voted to allow a “limited open forum” at school events. In theory, that means students could lead prayers (which is always legal). But in practice, the District figured that was the loophole they needed to exploit in order to continue the loudspeaker prayers. They didn’t understand that students who decide on their own to pray to Jesus still don’t have the legal right to use the school’s resources to broadcast that prayer.

According to schools Superintendent Timothy Saxton, the addendum “helps us more clearly define and implement our policy allowing student-led voluntary invocations before events. The board felt this resolution gives us more direction as a district and administrative team for future challenges.”

Saxton in an email Thursday praised the board on its action.

“I applaud the board’s decision as it has taken a clear stand and feels that the tradition of allowing (prayer) before home varsity events is something that truly matters to our students and the West Branch Local School District’s strong faith-based community,” he said.
​

Make no mistake: This was all about religion, and letting students use the loudspeaker to promote their religious views at school events was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s already happened. Last Friday night, there was a Christian prayer said over the loudspeakers before a football game. The public address announcer said it wasn’t sponsored by the school, but that’s really an irrelevant remark. It was like fine print that no one was ever going to see.

That’s the argument FFRF’s legal fellow Christopher Line made in a letter sent to the District on Friday:

Establishing a “limited public forum” to ensure that students will pray before games, and then including a disclaimer that this is not sponsored by the school does not make this practice legal… The Supreme Court has specifically struck down invocations given over the loudspeaker at public school athletic events, even when students-led.
​

The school has to decide what’s more important: Pushing Jesus on everybody (and dealing with the inevitable lawsuit), or saying no to the prayers and reminding students they can all talk to God silently and telepathically anytime they want. Hell, even if they want to do it vocally and for show, they can do it in the parking lot before the enter. The District shouldn’t be helping them out.

This isn’t complicated. At least it wouldn’t be if the school board gave a damn about following the law."
source​

*sigh* They just don't get it...............Or is it that they don't want to get it? In either case, STUPIDITY AGAIN REIGNS..

.​

"Freedom From Religion Foundation" Unquote.

Are they against freedom of religion allowed under the Human Rights, please.

Regards

 

[Skwim]

"Freedom From Religion Foundation" Unquote.

Are they against freedom of religion allowed under the Human Rights, please.

Regards

The loudspeakers? Yes they are. But I think the quietspeakers are for it.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Freedom From Religion Foundation" Unquote.

Are they against freedom of religion allowed under the Human Rights, please.

Regards

No; they're for it.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

please give me this site because i did look up the satanic church founded by Lavey. I dont see what you are pointing to. even so my point is that religions are like philosophies. they are man made tools of the mind and like other tools they are changed as needed or wanted. My original argument is that the satanist have no less right than any other religions. Nor should they have any more rights. I wouldnt aprove of a satanic pray said over the loud speaker and i dont think the supreme court would either.

Post #222 contains both sources: LaVey's original book defining Satanism and the Church of Satan website, the Church he founded

We can waste time arguing whether LaVeyism is the only true Satanim, but the point remains that LaVey Satanism is selfish and destructive to society. I therefore believe that it is necessary for certain limits to be placed on its religious freedom. For example, it is not a "charitable" institution and should not be given tax breaks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can waste time arguing whether LaVeyism is the only true Satanim, but the point remains that LaVey Satanism is selfish and destructive to society. I therefore believe that it is necessary for certain limits to be placed on its religious freedom. For example, it is not a "charitable" institution and should not be given tax breaks.

If organizations that are "selfish and destructive to society" were cut off from tax breaks, there are a lot of churches that would have real trouble making ends meet.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If organizations that are "selfish and destructive to society" were cut off from tax breaks, there are a lot of churches that would have real trouble making ends meet.

I'm not talking about if the people in them are self. I'm talking about if the TEACH selfishness and destructive behaviors. Big difference. The first is simply human nature. The second is advocacy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If organizations that are "selfish and destructive to society" were cut off from tax breaks, there are a lot of churches that would have real trouble making ends meet.

What mainline churches TEACH selfishness. To my knowledge, all the Christian churches teach "Love your neighbor as yourself." Human nature may not change, but there are differences in what we advocate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What mainline churches TEACH selfishness.

Most of them, IMO. The Prosperity Gospel churches are the most explicit about it, but it’s pretty common.

To my knowledge, all the Christian churches teach "Love your neighbor as yourself."

... as a means to avoid Hell, reach Heaven, or win reward in Heaven. Some also consider it a way to get reward from God while on Earth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most of them, IMO. The Prosperity Gospel churches are the most explicit about it, but it’s pretty common.


... as a means to avoid Hell, reach Heaven, or win reward in Heaven. Some also consider it a way to get reward from God while on Earth.

Prosperity gospel may be noxious, but it doesn't teach people to place their own interests above their neighbors. And I don't care what a -person's motivation is for doing good; I only care that they do good. If you were starving, would you care WHY a person gave you food? No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Prosperity gospel may be noxious, but it doesn't teach people to place their own interests above their neighbors. And I don't care what a -person's motivation is for doing good; I only care that they do good. If you were starving, would you care WHY a person gave you food? No.

You were the one who asked about selfishness.

BTW, the other part was “dangerous” which also applies to many churches.

My preference would be to just eliminate tax breaks for religions. If a church qualifies for tax breaks as a legitimate charity, so be it, but we shouldn’t automatically assume that an organization is charitable just because it’s religious.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You were the one who asked about selfishness.

Im not sure if you've read all my posts -- more than one person is involved in the discussion. But I have been very clear that I'm talking about the TEACHING of selfishness and hedonism, not the practice of it. There is a diffrence between advocacy and plain old human nature.

 

[loganonekenobi]

If organizations that are "selfish and destructive to society" were cut off from tax breaks, there are a lot of churches that would have real trouble making ends meet.

I tend to agree.Just a couple of counter points to Indigo. Harm to society can be seen when the pope says to the most aids ridden places that "the disease is bad but condoms are worse". Harm is obvious when the baptist preacher from Massechustes comes and encourages the death penalty for the LGBT community in Uganda. Fortunately the world empathy won out and now they only get life in prison. A great deal of harm can be shown when politicians try to limit or take away women's reproductive health care options in favor of St Augastines 1st/2nd century idea that sex is only for reproduction and that celebacy is the only true way. There are mountains of evidence that show that these policies are harmful to society and yet they still get tax breaks and soon may then be able to actively lobby. The greatest harm that i see is when they lie and/or distort the facts to children to achieve their "holy" mission.
I'm not advocating that Satanism is noble but I am pointing out that ,as per the original point of this post, they should have as much right to pray and be heard as any one else. Again, i'm totally okay with this praying before the foot ball game as long as there is a fair representation but you know there is not. Every time a non christain entity has been allowed to pray before a public event the christains in one form or another protest either by silently walking out or loudly drowning over the prayer being said with vitrol or by going on line in an uproar. They (the mesianic-monothistic faiths) do not now nor every have championed freedom of religion for any one but themselves. If they did these arguments and debate sites would not exist for this subject. But Jehova demands either loyalty or destruction.

 

[pearl]

Considering it was a lawsuit initiated by Atheists that led to the absence of prayer in public places I assume that this time, with the now SCOTUS, there will certainly be an increase in places where prayer is allowed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I tend to agree.Just a couple of counter points to Indigo. Harm to society can be seen when the pope says to the most aids ridden places that "the disease is bad but condoms are worse". Harm is obvious when the baptist preacher from Massechustes comes and encourages the death penalty for the LGBT community in Uganda.

And I agree with you. But these are single ride tickets.

When you deal with something like LaVeyist Satanism, you are talking about an unlimited use pass.

 

[Deidre]

The only people constantly talking about promoting a homosexual agenda are paranoid homophobes

Yea, I guess.