I think it's funny that religion is such a controversial topic. Millions of people are killed because of religion of all things.

In the end, you cannot fully PROVE that your religion is right. There is arguably no valid physical proof that any religion existed. But that's the beauty of it - religion does not NEED any physical proof to exist; all it needs is belief.

Take Buddhism as an example. The history of Siddartha Gautama and how he was Hindu and then thought up the 4 noble truths etc, etc. IF we somehow got into a time machine, went back to the time that he was supposedly alive, and found that there was in fact NO such human being as Siddartha Gautama (later seen as "The Buddha"), would we be able to slam the fact that all Buddhists are wrong right into their faces?

The answer is no. We could not. Even if we had physical proof that the beginning of the religion that they so heartily confide in was 100 percent myth, the followers of Buddhism would still practice the same religion. Why? Because of pure belief. There are so many people that confide in such a thing that it doesn't matter whether or not the full history of it is 100 percent correct.

So, in that sense, I could easily claim that every religion is wrong, but at the same time, every religion is right.

No sense in having an arguement about it, because you're never going to have a full conclusion to who is right and who isn't.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents :P

definately agree with you here. cant argue people out of pure faith

Yes! Amen Brother!

For now the evil ones can never prove wrong, my great and holy flying spaghetti monster!

FSM be praised!... because religion is not worth debating, we shall construct a moral code based completely off the holy monster's principles... and we shall instill these morals in the backbone of the world's greatest nations!

But why stop there?! Why not stone the non believers? Why not burn all heretics at the stake?


...and also, Buddhism was a horrible example. Buddhism does not need a Siddartha, in order to be followed. It is a way of life, a philosophy more than anything else.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism on the other hand... depend on a higher being that even your time machine could never find... and tell us to live our lives in accord with that higher power's will. It's about sacrificing parts of this life, in order to get into a better one. It's about focusing on the final outcome, rather than the moment. It's about blessing the meek, and the misfortunates... in order to comfort them and make their suffering a part of a much larger, God's will.

A Buddhist would be a Buddhist without a Buddha. A Christian would be a self destructive and life denying mad man, without a God.


If your point, is that faith is something that should never be questioned... never be harshly and violently attacked... then you are a damn fool.

Yes. And did you know that messages must be at least 5 characters?

Clearly religious believers should recognise that tolerance of others makes a hell of a lot of sense, as no matter how evangelical your religion is, i'm sure most of the "main dudes" of said religion were more in favour of acting peacefully and lovingly than wiping anyone who wont convert off the earth.

All religions are essentially tapping into the same "area", it always boggles my mind why people can't see their faith as a piece in a puzzle, rather than the ONE AND ONLY TRUE PATH TO PUZZLEIFICATION AND HAPPINESS AND HEAVEN yada yada yada...

Paradoxes anyway innit; you can be "right" as well as "wrong" at the same time - learn to love n tolerate and you'll have taken the positive messages of your faith to heart.

Your right overall. Ironically the fact that the existence of a God cannot be proven or disproven has been both the reason the concept has lasted so long, and the one of the main counter arguements for atheists to use against it, including their application of the concept to the wonderful flying teapot/spagetti monster/pink unicorn/whatever.

If your point, is that faith is something that should never be questioned... never be harshly and violently attacked... then you are a damn fool.

NO.

Fuck...I certainely hope that my OP did NOT come off like that. That is the main reason that I am not part of any religion (If you look at it, I'd probably be Agnostic...Which isn't really a religion either but I don't like to say I'm Agnostic either). Alot of religions require you, to a certain extent, to not ask questions and just follow along. Even as a small child in Sunday school, I found it a bit silly that questioning was looked down upon in some aspects of the religion I was "forced" into.

What would all the weak minded people do if it weren't for religion?

I mean, they need someone to think for them!

But I don't agree with the OP - blind faith is extremely damaging to society, and original, critical thinking should always be encouraged.

If it means arguing with god botherers, then so be it!

Well, me personally I just enjoy a good theological debate. Try starting one with your friends, they will get pissed. The internet is pretty much the only place where you can do this without seriously hurting anyone

It is illogical to claim that because a person has a strong conviction for their religion that they are "intolerant" of everyone who doesn't follow it. It is possible to believe that other people are wrong without being intolerant of them.

It is illogical to claim that because a person has a strong conviction for their religion that they are "intolerant" of everyone who doesn't follow it. It is possible to believe that other people are wrong without being intolerant of them.

Being tolerant means possessing a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards another person.

Is it fair to tell someone that they are going to burn in hell for the rest of eternity? (not to mention ... is it insensitive?)

Is viewing their actions through your own personal feelings/emotions towards your own religion being objective?

Is attempting to outlaw another individuals right to happiness being permissive? (you know what i'm referring to here)

Is attempting to outlaw another individuals right to happiness being permissive? (you know what i'm referring to here)

We have a right to happiness?

Really?

I must have missed that one...where can I put in an official request that i get my portion of bliss?

'right to happiness' LOL

"Ladies and Gentlemen , We are now leaving La La Land and re-entering reality" :p

(nb. the pursuit -note the stress- of happiness is only an unalienable right for americans).

We have a right to happiness?

Really?

I must have missed that one.

Isn't the American motto and the supposed unalienable rights of man "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Isn't the American motto and the supposed unalienable rights of man "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

It sure is - until you mix up religion with it, and then suddenly it all goes awry.

jack - you know damnnn well what I was referring to. (homosexuality)

This is incredibly off topic, but is that a TSOM lyric in your sig, jackketch? It looks like a line from "Marian", off the album "First and Last and Always".

Being tolerant means possessing a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards another person.

It would seem that your standard for "tolerance" implies that rational thought, the essence of which is being able to choose between what is right and wrong, is a form of intolerance.

Is it fair to tell someone that they are going to burn in hell for the rest of eternity? (not to mention ... is it insensitive?)

Christians aren't supposed to be doing that. God is the ultimate judge, not us. While the consequences of sin that isn't repented of (salvation) is eternal death (Hell), the Christians goal is to help others become saved, not to judge them and condemn them.

Is viewing their actions through your own personal feelings/emotions towards your own religion being objective?

I would charge you with the task of finding a single human being that does not do this, irrespective of their religious preferences. Christians do not hold a monopoly on the very HUMAN inclination to think only from their own perspectives.

Is attempting to outlaw another individuals right to happiness being permissive? (you know what i'm referring to here)

Is it intolerant to condemn murderers, simply because you have personally decided that it is wrong ? The issue here is the affect of the actions on society.

A lot of people, not just Christians, think homosexuality is dangerous (diseases, raising children in same sex households, possible propensity for child molestation, etc.) to society. I don't think it is irrational for heterosexuals to resist potentially harmful activities and lifestyles.

However, I haven't heard of anyone trying to outlaw homosexuality (though I am sure someone has).

It would seem that your standard for "tolerance" implies that rational thought, the essence of which is being able to choose between what is right and wrong, is a form of intolerance.

How exactly did you ascertain my personal standard for tolerance? I never stated that to be rational was to be tolerant. I'm sure there are many who hold rational viewpoints about one thing, yet exercise intolerance towards another.

In fact ... when was rationality mentioned at all in this discussion, least of all by me?


Christians aren't supposed to be doing that. God is the ultimate judge, not us. While the consequences of sin that isn't repented of (salvation) is eternal death (Hell), the Christians goal is to help others become saved, not to judge them and condemn them.

"Aren't supposed to" and "actually does" are two entirely different things. The Christian activity of helping others to be "saved" is essentially helping them make sure they DO find salvation and DON'T go to hell. Although some may be a little too polite to actually utter the words: "I suggest you follow the faith, else you might go to hell" ... you can't deny that in their hearts, that's their true motivation, to lead them to God and away from the Devil. Else why would they even attempt to "save" them?



I would charge you with the task of finding a single human being that does not do this, irrespective of their religious preferences. Christians do not hold a monopoly on the very HUMAN inclination to think only from their own perspectives.

You 'charge me with the task' of proving that Christianity has the monopoly on intolerance...

I'll pass. You and I both know that Islam is farrrr more intolerant than Christianity. Sorry, can't cover all human beings in one tiny umbrella. You win this one.



Is it intolerant to condemn murderers, simply because you have personally decided that it is wrong ? The issue here is the affect of the actions on society.

Why are you asking silly questions you already know the answer to yourself? You can easily surmise (i would hope) by my general personality and demeanor that I would fully and whole-heartedly condemn a murderer. Or a rapist. Or a thief! Or a drunk driver.

But homosexuality isn't murder. It's not violent when consensual, and it doesn't affect society in a negative way - unless society is intolerant to the rights of two people in love pursuing happiness. Then society itself becomes full of negativity, because one group of human beings fail to try to understand another group of human beings due to 2,000+ year-old scripture.

A lot of people, not just Christians, think homosexuality is dangerous (diseases, raising children in same sex households, possible propensity for child molestation, etc.) to society. I don't think it is irrational for heterosexuals to resist potentially harmful activities and lifestyles.

Secular heterosexuals don't condemn homosexuality for the same reasons Christians condemn homosexuality. They just prefer the same sex, be it aesthetical reasons, reasons based on traditions they're comfortable with, or ... maybe just find it to be ... icky. Watching two men go at it doesn't exactly turn me on, but am I going to think that I'm on a better path than they are because of it? No way, no how. That's their decision.


However, I haven't heard of anyone trying to outlaw homosexuality (though I am sure someone has).

They know they couldn't ever outlaw it. Look at how well Prohibition went over! heh

You know what I'm referring to, Dig. Quit being coy with me, sister.
;)

This is incredibly off topic, but is that a TSOM lyric in your sig, jackketch? It looks like a line from "Marian", off the album "First and Last and Always".

Yep , as is the german bit in my profile.

Isn't the American motto and the supposed unalienable rights of man "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

I said note the stress (italics) the pursuit maybe blessed but the attainment ...

It is illogical to claim that because a person has a strong conviction for their religion that they are "intolerant" of everyone who doesn't follow it. It is possible to believe that other people are wrong without being intolerant of them.

You're absolutely correct. I have friends who are very strong in their christian belief. They know that I do not believe in any god/gods. Our opposing beliefs do not prevent us from sharing strong bonds of friendship.

A lot of people, not just Christians, think homosexuality is dangerous (diseases, raising children in same sex households, possible propensity for child molestation, etc.) to society.

People seriously think that? It's not being gay that spreads diseases and HIV, it's being someone who sleeps around and you'll find responsible and loose people who are gay or straight. Also, I'm shocked that people think that just because you have feelings for people of the same sex, you're far more likely to be a child molester. That's quite unsettling.

Being tolerant means possessing a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards another person.

Is it fair to tell someone that they are going to burn in hell for the rest of eternity? (not to mention ... is it insensitive?)

Is viewing their actions through your own personal feelings/emotions towards your own religion being objective?

Is attempting to outlaw another individuals right to happiness being permissive? (you know what i'm referring to here)

I have to only partially agree with you on this one. Although the points you make are valid, they tend to paint all christians with the same broad brush. I personally know christians who are very devout, but who are also very tolerant of opposing views. They are some of my closest friends.

I have to only partially agree with you on this one. Although the points you make are valid, they tend to paint all christians with the same broad brush. I personally know christians who are very devout, but who are also very tolerant of opposing views. They are some of my closest friends.

My entire immediate family are Christians. They love me unconditionally. About 80% of my closest friends are Christians. We get along swimmingly, just fantastic - until the subject of faith comes up, and that sad, "I pity you" glimmer of sympathy twinkles in their eyes.

Knowing that my dad, who I love and respect more than anyone else in this world, has grief in his heart over the fact that he's worried that his only daughter might burn in hell for rejecting God - that just plain bums me out. I wish I could change it, but I can't. He's too 'old school' to even discuss it. Gotta love him, though!

My entire immediate family are Christians. They love me unconditionally. About 80% of my closest friends are Christians. We get along swimmingly, just fantastic - until the subject of faith comes up, and that sad, "I pity you" glimmer of sympathy twinkles in their eyes.

Knowing that my dad, who I love and respect more than anyone else in this world, has grief in his heart over the fact that he's worried that his only daughter might burn in hell for rejecting God - that just plain bums me out. I wish I could change it, but I can't. He's too 'old school' to even discuss it. Gotta love him, though!

I have to admit, I've seen the twinkle of which you speak. I guess you could say that I'm the black sheep of the family. Both of my parents, my brother, and my sisters are all christian.

I've been an atheist for many years now, but I have not voiced my beliefs( or should I say disbelief?) to family members untill a couple of years ago. My siblings all know that I am atheist and have pretty much come to accept the fact. My parents , on the other hand , haven't a clue.

My father will be 80 next March, and my mom is not far behind him. Neither are in the best of health, and I have no desire to bring any grief to them.

You're absolutely correct. I have friends who are very strong in their christian belief. They know that I do not believe in any god/gods. Our opposing beliefs do not prevent us from sharing strong bonds of friendship.

That's awesome, and heartening in a society where it is STRONGLY believed that all Christians are intolerant and bigoted.

That's awesome, and heartening in a society where it is STRONGLY believed that all Christians are intolerant and bigoted.

Well christians do tend to reinforce that particular impression, don't they?

Yes. And did you know that messages must be at least 5 characters?

Lol‬‬‬‬‬ 

Well christians do tend to reinforce that particular impression, don't they?

No more than any other human being, if not arguably less. Remember, I don't consider Mormons, Catholics, or Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians". Of the remaining "true" Christians, a very good portion are exceedingly tolerant of those who aren't like them. So much so that it is now illegal for their children to pray or read the Bible in school. Being the majority, don't you think such a thing would be impossible to accomplish either through the legislative or judicial processes if Christians were so intolerant and bigoted ?

Well, me personally I just enjoy a good theological debate. Try starting one with your friends, they will get pissed. The internet is pretty much the only place where you can do this without seriously hurting anyone

I've had some semi-decent discussions with some of my classmates on this... however I love a good discussion with an intelligent religious teacher. Not to mention that a good discussion leads to no work for eveyone.

I have to admit, I've seen the twinkle of which you speak. I guess you could say that I'm the black sheep of the family. Both of my parents, my brother, and my sisters are all christian.


I haven't seen the twinkle... most religious people that I meet are either too stupid to use religion other than anything as a crutch and end up trying to defend their beliefs when I attack them, or they are intelligent enough to see why people won't believe in their religion, and accept it.

No more than any other human being, if not arguably less. Remember, I don't consider Mormons, Catholics, or Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians".

Your not considering them to be Christians does not change the fact that they are Christians. They all base their belief systems on Jesus Christ. They are simply different subsects (of Christianity) . You may not agree that they are correct in the way they believe, but that does not mean that they are not Christians.

Of those, a very good portion are exceedingly tolerant of those who aren't like them. So much so that it is now illegal for their children to pray or read the Bible in school.

It is not illegal for children to pray or read the bible in a public school.

It is illegal for a publicly funded school (or anyone representing such a school at a school sponsored event) to promote/sponsor prayer/bible reading or to denounce/inhibit prayer/bible reading by students.

Being the majority, don't you think such a thing would be impossible to accomplish either through the legislative or judicial processes if Christians were so intolerant and bigoted ?

Not at all, since those legislative/ judicial processes must adhere to established constitutional law.

Don't get me wrong. I agreed with you wholeheartedly with your statement that:
“
It is illogical to claim that because a person has a strong conviction for their religion that they are "intolerant" of everyone who doesn't follow it. It is possible to believe that other people are wrong without being intolerant of them.'

In doing so, I did not intend to imply that such tolerance is common. In reality, such tolerance is an exception, rather than the rule.

Your not considering them to be Christians does not change the fact that they are Christians. They all base their belief systems on Jesus Christ. They are simply different subsects (of Christianity) . You may not agree that they are correct in the way they believe, but that does not mean that they are not Christians.

Actually, you are incorrect. Simply invoking the vowels and syllables J, e, s, u, and s does not make one a Christian. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Christ.

By changing the tenets, adding books, taking positions contrary to scripture, etc. they are clearly exhibiting a desire to put their faith in themselves, and not God.

It is not illegal for children to pray or read the bible in a public school.

- A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. (Engel v Vitale, 1962; Abington v Schempp, 1963; Commissioner of Education v School Committee of Leyden, 1971)

- It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them. (Stone v Graham, 1980; Ring v Grand Forks Public School District, 1980; Lanner v Wimmer, 1981)

- If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to do so aloud (and only because there are no laws against "thought crimes", yet). (Reed v Van Hoven, 1965)

- When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer. (Harris v Joint School District, 1994)

- In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or even to open his Bible at school. (Gierke v Blotzer, 1989)

- It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books which deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school. (Roberts v Madigan, 1990) -- you will, however find books about Kwanzaa, Rastafarianism, etc.

Not at all, since those legislative/ judicial processes must adhere to established constitutional law. The processes for enacting new laws are established, yes, but how politicians and judges interpret the powers given to them in the Constitution are not.

The problem with this is that there are two ways to see the constitution: from a strict constructionist standpoint, or a living document standpoint. It just so happens that Christians almost always take the strict constructionist standpoint (religion is not restricted), and liberal atheist/agnostics take the living document standpoint (religion can be restricted).

Also, I should point out that there is no such thing as "established constitutional law" with regards to practicing Christianity in public schools. The Constitution has been notoriously applied incoherently and inconsistently across the board, being left only to the whim of the judge presiding over each individual case, or the personal convictions of any given legislator.

The fact that Christians AREN'T intolerant and bigoted for the most part is testimony to how these court decisions were even handed down, and how anti-Christianity laws are even passed. If Christians were more intolerant, this type of thing simply wouldn't happen.

In doing so, I did not intend to imply that such tolerance is common. In reality, such tolerance is an exception, rather than the rule.And I disagree. I don't see Christians running around with pitchforks trying to kill all the "heathens". Nor do I see them filling the dockets with grievances against atheists and homosexuals, as atheists do against Christians.

In order to be a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Christ.

.

"But Officer, My saviour COMMANDED his followers wear a sword. It be even more important than having food"

So i'm guessing a swordless christian isn't a christian at all?

Or would you care to argue that somehow a direct command from Christ himself is no longer valid?

It seems like what she's arguing is that HER brand of Christianity is the only CORRECT brand of Christianity.

And I disagree. I don't see Christians running around with pitchforks trying to kill all the "heathens". Nor do I see them filling the dockets with grievances against atheists and homosexuals, as atheists do against Christians.

Oh, those passive and apathetic Christians, never picking on society, yet taking all the heat from those mean old secular groups! So under-represented they must feel! How alone they are in this country, with such little support from the Government! How persecuted they must feel, for allowing themselves to remain so meek and without a voice!

:rolleyes:

Exeter University Evangelical Christian Union today issued High Court proceedings:

Christian students take 'equality' to court (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2126332.ece)

Good News Club v. Milford Central School:

Christians in court (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2001/august6/14.24.html)

Christian seeking to bring nativity scene grievance to High Courts - rejected!

More Christians in court (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253143,00.html)

Christian Conservatives Will Take Aim at Supreme Court in New Telecast:

Christians rally to denounce the Supreme Court! (http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5086)

^ This last one is especially peculiar, seeing where the members of the Supreme Court rest their adherence:

Religious affiliations of Supreme Court members (http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html)

The Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups have played a leading role in public opposition to gay marriage:

Polls show that religiosity is a huge factor in the opposition (http://pewforum.org/gay-marriage/)

GOP defined as "The Religious-Friendly Party":

Opinion is widely shared across the religious and political spectrum, and those who place great personal importance on religion (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=51#4)

Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly (Approved in 1845):

An ACT to incorporate the Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/legal/default.asp)

Christian-right views are swaying politicians regarding enviromental issues:

"Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress."

Abortion. Same-sex marriage. Stem-cell research. (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/)

If it seems as though these days there are more court proceedings being spawned by the secular society, take into account that they've just tired of living in a country that for decades has taken it's religious affiliations to the political supper tables with them.

I often hear Christians exclaiming their disgust and shock at the Muslim world, and how fanatical the adherents of Islam have become as of late. The Christians have been swaddled for so long in the warm, comfy blanket of "Majority Rule" that they have no NEED to get up in arms over anything.

It would be interesting to see what kind of extremism they'd be willing to exercise if they suddenly found themselves under Islamic - or even completely SECULAR majority rule!

I bet they could one-up those Jihadists in more ways than one, taking into account the exciteable fervor they usually maintain when it comes to adequately representing their love for Jesus Christ. Those "Onward Christian Soldiers" would then probably consider strapping dynamite to themselves in an effort to prove a point about the loyalty they have to their God.

Actually, you are incorrect. Simply invoking the vowels and syllables J, e, s, u, and s does not make one a Christian. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Christ.

By changing the tenets, adding books, taking positions contrary to scripture, etc. they are clearly exhibiting a desire to put their faith in themselves, and not God.

I'm certain that you would have a tough time convinceing the many millions of Catholics, Mormans, JWs, etc. that they really aren't Christians.



- A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. (Engel v Vitale, 1962; Abington v Schempp, 1963; Commissioner of Education v School Committee of Leyden, 1971)

Only if the prayer is being offered by the school or a representative of the school.

- It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them. (Stone v Graham, 1980; Ring v Grand Forks Public School District, 1980; Lanner v Wimmer, 1981)

It is unconstitutional for the ten commandments to be displayed because the government can neither respect nor limit the free exercise of religion. The concern was not that the commandments would be read and meditated upon. The concern was that by displaying the commandments, the school effectively takes a position of endorsement.

- If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to do so aloud (and only because there are no laws against "thought crimes", yet). (Reed v Van Hoven, 1965)

I have as yet been unable to locate any official rulings in this case. Thus I cannot offer valid rebuttal. From the nature of the "thought crimes" comment, I have serious doubts that the statement was from the legal decision. It appears to more likely be a dissenter's opinion.

- When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer. (Harris v Joint School District, 1994)

This case regards school sponsored graduation ceremony. Student speakers represent the school.

Also, I should point out that there is no such thing as "established constitutional law" with regards to practicing Christianity in public schools. The Constitution has been notoriously applied incoherently and inconsistently across the board, being left only to the whim of the judge presiding over each individual case, or the personal convictions of any given legislator.



Then I suppose the following excerpt is a figment of my imagination?:


…The legal rules that govern the issue of constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools are similar to those that govern religious expression generally. Thus, in discussing the operation of Section 9524 of the ESEA, this guidance sometimes speaks in terms of "religious expression." There are a variety of issues relating to religion in the public schools, however, that this guidance is not intended to address.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ]
The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. [ 4 ] Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. [ 5 ] Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. [ 6 ]
Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman [ 7 ], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [ 8 ], for example, the Court invalidated a school's football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.
Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ] and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [ 10 ] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. [ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. [ 14 ] Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. [ 15 ] As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," [ 16 ] and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. [ 17 ]…

Source (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html)

The fact that Christians AREN'T intolerant and bigoted for the most part is testimony to how these court decisions were even handed down, and how anti-Christianity laws are even passed. If Christians were more intolerant, this type of thing simply wouldn't happen.

I find it interesting that such laws are always referred to as "anti Christian laws", when in reality, they effect any and all religions. The only reason other religions don't complain is due to the fact that they never established a serious foothold in the public school system. When have you ever heard of a school actually displaying the Koran?


And I disagree. I don't see Christians running around with pitchforks trying to kill all the "heathens".

You don't have to try to kill someone to be intolerant of them.

Nor do I see them filling the dockets with grievances against atheists and homosexuals, as atheists do against Christians.

Please provide reference to any such case. I seriously doubt that you will find much other than those filed in objection to religious infringement issues concerning the Establishment Clause.