Indianapolis discrimination against atheists

82	22292

offline

waterfish333

52 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 1:23am UTC

While I am surprised, I noticed on thing about his blog entry.

Any site addressing LGBT issues or sexual identity is also banned â" great idea for the kids going through confusing times, right?

(From first site listed in thread).

If you read the actual PDF, it specifically mentions that LGBT sites are not banned along with other sexual sites. They are talking about what essentially amounts to porn sites. Other than that, I disagree with the atheistic ban. Stupid concept and I hope it doesn't stay up. Even if one doesn't believe in atheistic ideas, they shouldn't
1. learn about them and at least understand the principles and
2. attempt to force students to not learn / understand them.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 1:32am UTC

I'll say again, it's up to the school. If they believe something is disrupting the learning process, then they can ban it. The don't have to have very much reason for such an action.

Not to mention, many atheist sites contain information of satanism, and usually satanists will go on atheistic blogs and forums, or post on atheistic sites, giving substantial reasoning for their actions.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not on their side, but the law protects the school in this case.

offline

Thyll

476 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 1:38am UTC

Not to mention, many atheist sites contain information of satanism, and usually satanists will go on atheistic blogs and forums, or post on atheistic sites, giving substantial reasoning for their actions.

...?

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not on their side, but the law protects the school in this case.

The law isn't always right.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 1:44am UTC

The law isn't always right.

yes however the law that schools have the right to ban any non-necessity disruptive to the learning process is held up in court much more than it is ruled against.

There are tons of cases regarding this, yet only a small handful have made it to the supreme court, and that was with borderline subjects (ie: students wearing anti-Nam protest armbands -- one of the few that was supported).

So, I suppose, we need to debate whether this is a borderline subject.

offline

HiddenDistance

1,310 posts

Peasant

Posted November 20, '09 3:14am UTC

If they believe something is disrupting the learning process, then they can ban it.

the law protects the school in this case.

Then that's a really bad law that needs to be changed. If you can make atheism a subject that's disruptive to the learning process, then you can do it with any subject. Aren't schools supposed to be places of - and I know, it's a shocker - learning?

The thing that undermines your point the most is that the school hasn't decided that all religious topics/materials are contrary to learning, and has also banned mainstream websites. What the school is doing is banning some, but not all - and in that manner they are discriminating against a specific group of people, and that's just plain wrong.

Not to mention, many atheist sites contain information of satanism, and usually satanists will go on atheistic blogs and forums, or post on atheistic sites, giving substantial reasoning for their actions.

I'm sorry, but this is way off the deep end for me. Satanism and atheism do not share similarities. It's like if someone who believes in satanism posts a blog on their facebook - does that make facebook a satanist website?

Additionally - who cares? Satanism is another religion that people choose to follow, and the school doesn't have a right to discriminate against them either.

[quote]If they believe something is disrupting the learning process, then they can ban it.\r\n\r\nthe law protects the school in this case.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThen that's a really bad law that needs to be changed.  If you can make atheism a subject that's disruptive to the learning process, then you can do it with any subject.  Aren't schools supposed to be places of - and I know, it's a shocker - [b]learning?[/b]\r\n\r\nThe thing that undermines your point the most is that the school hasn't decided that [b]all[/b] religious topics/materials are contrary to learning, and has also banned mainstream websites.  What the school is doing is banning some, but not all - and in that manner they are discriminating against a specific group of people, and that's just plain wrong.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not to mention, many atheist sites contain information of satanism, and usually satanists will go on atheistic blogs and forums, or post on atheistic sites, giving substantial reasoning for their actions.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm sorry, but this is way off the deep end for me.  Satanism and atheism do not share similarities.  It's like if someone who believes in satanism posts a blog on their facebook - does that make facebook a satanist website?\r\n\r\nAdditionally - who cares?  Satanism is another religion that people choose to follow, and the school doesn't have a right to discriminate against them [b]either[/b].

offline

daswiftarrow

873 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 4:26am UTC

This happened to me too. Most minority religion sites are blocked but not the christian ones. Also when i tried to get on a site I use for liberal news, it was blocked. But when i got on the conservative news site it was open...how do you justify that too?

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 4:29am UTC

Then that's a really bad law that needs to be changed. If you can make atheism a subject that's disruptive to the learning process, then you can do it with any subject. Aren't schools supposed to be places of - and I know, it's a shocker - learning?

It's a great law that needs to be chiseled into more fair guidelines at time.
I don't know exactly why, but their public school system seems to think (or may have had incidents in the past) that atheist websites cause stir amongst children who are supposed to be learning the correct material. If they want to learn of atheism, let's not forget about the accessibility of the internet these days.

The thing that undermines your point the most is that the school hasn't decided that all religious topics/materials are contrary to learning, and has also banned mainstream websites. What the school is doing is banning some, but not all - and in that manner they are discriminating against a specific group of people, and that's just plain wrong.

like i said, i don't agree with the school, and there's a small chance it could be decided against in court, but they have every right to do this if any student has in the future or past used atheistic information to disturb even one other student during the learning process.

I'm sorry, but this is way off the deep end for me. Satanism and atheism do not share similarities. It's like if someone who believes in satanism posts a blog on their facebook - does that make facebook a satanist website?

It's not my fault that people on the internet associate atheism with satanism.

[quote]Then that's a really bad law that needs to be changed.  If you can make atheism a subject that's disruptive to the learning process, then you can do it with any subject.  Aren't schools supposed to be places of - and I know, it's a shocker - learning?[/quote]\r\nIt's a great law that needs to be chiseled into more fair guidelines at time.\r\nI don't know exactly why, but their public school system seems to think (or may have had incidents in the past) that atheist websites cause stir amongst children who are supposed to be learning the [b]correct[/b] material.  If they want to learn of atheism, let's not forget about the accessibility of the internet these days.\r\n[quote]The thing that undermines your point the most is that the school hasn't decided that all religious topics/materials are contrary to learning, and has also banned mainstream websites.  What the school is doing is banning some, but not all - and in that manner they are discriminating against a specific group of people, and that's just plain wrong.[/quote]\r\nlike i said, i don't agree with the school, and there's a small chance it could be decided against in court, but they have every right to do this if any student has in the future or past used atheistic information to disturb even one other student during the learning process.\r\n[quote]I'm sorry, but this is way off the deep end for me.  Satanism and atheism do not share similarities.  It's like if someone who believes in satanism posts a blog on their facebook - does that make facebook a satanist website?[/quote]\r\nIt's not my fault that people on the internet associate atheism with satanism.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '09 4:43am UTC

The school policy says that, since it isn't even in this thread yet..

Sites that promote and provide information on any religion such as Wicca, Witchcraft, or Satanism. Occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism.... influence of real events through the use of spells, incarnations, curses and magic powers. Includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.

obviously, they include atheistic views as a subcategory of mysticism. If any of those atheistic sites fit any part of it -- spells, incarnations, curses, magic, unexplained events -- then they have means to ban it.

offline

HiddenDistance

1,310 posts

Peasant

Posted November 20, '09 8:12am UTC

their public school system seems to think (or may have had incidents in the past) that atheist websites cause stir amongst children who are supposed to be learning the correct material.

And that's precisely what's wrong - a school does not have the right to dictate or decide what religious material is 'correct' as you so nicely put it - so if they're going to ban any religious material, they should be banning it all, or not at all - otherwise, they're discriminating.

they have every right to do this if any student has in the future or past used atheistic information to disturb even one other student during the learning process.

You could use this argument to ban *anything*. You really have to ask yourself if it's a society that considers itself 'free' if it can arbitrarily ban anything because an administrator has dissenting views with the subject matter - then all they have to do is say that it disrupts the learning process, and that's a load of BS.

obviously, they include atheistic views as a subcategory of mysticism.

No, atheistic views was put between a set of commas, setting aside distinctly from Wicca, Witchcraft, Satanism, Occult practices. it's "voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism' that's getting piled together.

And *real* atheistic sites have nothing to do with spells, incarnations, curses or magic. And again - they're discriminating against these alternative religions as well, which they have no right to, as there is meant to be a distinct separation of church and state - being that this is a public school, it should be adhering to the U.S.A.'s constitution.

[quote]their public school system seems to think (or may have had incidents in the past) that atheist websites cause stir amongst children who are supposed to be learning the correct material.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd that's precisely what's wrong - a school does not have the right to dictate or decide what religious material is 'correct' as you so nicely put it - so if they're going to ban any religious material, they should be banning it all, or not at all - otherwise, they're discriminating.\r\n\r\n[quote]they have every right to do this if any student has in the future or past used atheistic information to disturb even one other student during the learning process. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou could use this argument to ban *anything*.  You really have to ask yourself if it's a society that considers itself 'free' if it can arbitrarily ban anything because an administrator has dissenting views with the subject matter - then all they have to do is say that it disrupts the learning process, and that's a load of BS.\r\n\r\n[quote]obviously, they include atheistic views as a subcategory of mysticism.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, atheistic views was put between a set of commas, setting aside distinctly from Wicca, Witchcraft, Satanism, Occult practices.  it's "voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism' that's getting piled together.\r\n\r\nAnd *real* atheistic sites have nothing to do with spells, incarnations, curses or magic.  And again - they're discriminating against these alternative religions as well, which they have no right to, as there is meant to be a distinct separation of church and state - being that this is a public school, it should be adhering to the U.S.A.'s constitution.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 21, '09 6:22am UTC

And that's precisely what's wrong - a school does not have the right to dictate or decide what religious material is 'correct' as you so nicely put it - so if they're going to ban any religious material, they should be banning it all, or not at all - otherwise, they're discriminating.

You don't even know exactly which sites they're banning. They could be banning sites influencing "spells, incarnations, curses, and magic".

ALSO: I didn't say anything about the religious material being correct or incorrect, I said that the children "are supposed to be learning the correct material," meaning the requisite material from the Board of Education. They're supposed to be learning about effectively searching the web, or history, or whichever subject they're using in regard to when they're using the web. Not spells and curses.

You could use this argument to ban *anything*. You really have to ask yourself if it's a society that considers itself 'free' if it can arbitrarily ban anything because an administrator has dissenting views with the subject matter - then all they have to do is say that it disrupts the learning process, and that's a load of BS.

they can use it to ban nearly anything (that they can prove is)used to disrupt the learning process. also, yes we're a free society but this law was put in place so our schools are as much of a learning-dedicated place as possible.
This law attempts to keep our schools a place of uniform learning, and if this school is perverting this law the ban will be repealed.

No, atheistic views was put between a set of commas, setting aside distinctly from Wicca, Witchcraft, Satanism, Occult practices. it's "voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism' that's getting piled together.

It's in the same number of banned items (number six on the list i think). The numbers are there so that the reader can see the different categories banned.
NOT TO MENTION: commas are put in sentences when related items are being spoken of (semicolons when non-related)and all the things in that sentence are specifications of (what they consider)mysticism, which is shown by the fact that after they list those items they say "or any OTHER form of mysticism". If it were only voodoo rituals included in mysticism, it might've been a separate sentence and definitely a separate verb clause.
Do not barter grammatical meaning with me.

And *real* atheistic sites have nothing to do with spells, incarnations, curses or magic. And again - they're discriminating against these alternative religions as well, which they have no right to, as there is meant to be a distinct separation of church and state - being that this is a public school, it should be adhering to the U.S.A.'s constitution.

well no one here knows whether or not those *real* atheistic sites are being banned or not.

also, we don't need children who are supposed to be learning being provoked to practice witchcraft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All this being said:
If they are banning atheist sites which do not include witchcraft, wicca, satanism, occult practices, voodoo, spells, incarnations, curses, magic powers, paranormal events, nor unexplained events then yes, it is substantially fucked enough to overturn in the court of law.

[quote]And that's precisely what's wrong - a school does not have the right to dictate or decide what religious material is 'correct' as you so nicely put it - so if they're going to ban any religious material, they should be banning it all, or not at all - otherwise, they're discriminating.[/quote]\r\nYou don't even know exactly which sites they're banning.  They could be banning sites influencing "spells, incarnations, curses, and magic".\r\n\r\nALSO: I didn't say anything about the religious material being correct or incorrect, I said that the children "are supposed to be learning the [i]correct[/i] material," meaning the requisite material from the Board of Education.  They're supposed to be learning about effectively searching the web, or history, or whichever subject they're using in regard to when they're using the web.  Not spells and curses.\r\n[quote]You could use this argument to ban *anything*.  You really have to ask yourself if it's a society that considers itself 'free' if it can arbitrarily ban anything because an administrator has dissenting views with the subject matter - then all they have to do is say that it disrupts the learning process, and that's a load of BS.[/quote]\r\nthey can use it to ban nearly anything (that they can prove is)used to disrupt the learning process.  also, yes we're a free society but this law was put in place so our schools are as much of a learning-dedicated place as possible.  \r\nThis law attempts to keep our schools a place of uniform learning, and if this school is perverting this law the ban will be repealed.\r\n[quote]No, atheistic views was put between a set of commas, setting aside distinctly from Wicca, Witchcraft, Satanism, Occult practices.  it's "voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism' that's getting piled together.[/quote]\r\nIt's in the same number of banned items (number six on the list i think).  The numbers are there so that the reader can see the different categories banned.\r\nNOT TO MENTION: commas are put in sentences when [b]related[/b] items are being spoken of (semicolons when non-related)and all the things in that sentence are specifications of (what they consider)mysticism, which is shown by the fact that after they list those items they say "or any OTHER form of mysticism".  If it were only voodoo rituals included in mysticism, it might've been a separate sentence and [b][i]definitely[/i][/b] [b]a separate verb clause[/b].\r\nDo not barter grammatical meaning with me.\r\n[quote]And *real* atheistic sites have nothing to do with spells, incarnations, curses or magic.  And again - they're discriminating against these alternative religions as well, which they have no right to, as there is meant to be a distinct separation of church and state - being that this is a public school, it should be adhering to the U.S.A.'s constitution.[/quote]\r\nwell no one here knows whether or not those *real* atheistic sites are being banned or not.\r\n\r\nalso, we don't need children who are supposed to be learning being provoked to practice witchcraft.\r\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nAll this being said:\r\nIf they are banning atheist sites which do not include witchcraft, wicca, satanism, occult practices, voodoo, spells, incarnations, curses, magic powers, paranormal events, nor unexplained events then yes, it is substantially fucked enough to overturn in the court of law.

offline

HiddenDistance

1,310 posts

Peasant

Posted November 21, '09 8:51am UTC

They're supposed to be learning about effectively searching the web, or history, or whichever subject they're using in regard to when they're using the web. Not spells and curses.

Or Christianity.

Do not barter grammatical meaning with me.

Why, because you're terrible at it?

Dictionary.com shows the relevant definition of a comma as:

the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.

And I'll bring out to emphasize -

It is also used to separate items in a list

Separate - as in not together.

Merriam Webster defines it as:

1 : a punctuation mark , used especially as a mark of separation within the sentence
2 : pause, interval

I'll give you some time to remove your foot from your mouth.

You're completely missing the point, either because you're too obtuse to understand it, or you're doing it purposefully just to be irritating.

[quote]They're supposed to be learning about effectively searching the web, or history, or whichever subject they're using in regard to when they're using the web.  Not spells and curses. [/quote]\r\n\r\nOr Christianity.\r\n\r\n[quote]Do not barter grammatical meaning with me. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy, because you're terrible at it?\r\n\r\nDictionary.com shows the relevant definition of a  [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comma]comma [/url]as:\r\n\r\n[quote]the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd I'll bring out to emphasize - \r\n\r\n[b]It is also used to separate items in a list[/b]\r\n\r\nSeparate - as in not together.\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comma]Merriam Webster[/url] defines it as:\r\n\r\n[quote]1 : a punctuation mark , used especially as a mark of separation within the sentence\r\n2 : pause, interval[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'll give you some time to remove your foot from your mouth.\r\n\r\nYou're completely missing the point, either because you're too obtuse to understand it, or you're doing it purposefully just to be irritating.

offline

HiddenDistance

1,310 posts

Peasant

Posted November 21, '09 11:09am UTC

And, just to hammer both of these home -

What if a school administrator decides that democratic websites are 'contrary' to the learning procedure, but republican websites are not? That's what I'm getting at. Either you should block a particular subject and *all* things included in it, or not at all. You can't say democratic political websites are contrary to learning, but repbulican are not. This is exactly the same thing with religion - you are banning some religions, but not all of them; you're saying some religions are okay, but others are not. It's crap.

And to give you a little lesson on items in a sentence that are separated with a comma:

Things I do not enjoy doing are praying, yoga, driving in bumper to bumper traffic, eating sushi or other raw food.

See what I did there? Now try telling me that praying and sushi are somehow related in a way other then I don't like either of them.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 21, '09 5:44pm UTC

When the words are in the same verb phrase, and commas are used, all of those things are related items. Also, it's not very often you see official documents randomly choosing the placing of the words instead of grouping them.
Not to mention, when the dictionaries say "used especially as a mark of separation within the sentence" they mean that commas are used to separate different clauses within a sentence (ie: "[first subject/verb/complement], but [second subject/verb/etc]&quot.

Things I do not enjoy doing are praying, yoga, driving in bumper to bumper traffic, eating sushi or other raw food.

that's a completely different example than what they were using. also, most people would include occult practices in mysticism, and atheism came in the middle of those two terms.

What if a school administrator decides that democratic websites are 'contrary' to the learning procedure, but republican websites are not? That's what I'm getting at. Either you should block a particular subject and *all* things included in it, or not at all. You can't say democratic political websites are contrary to learning, but repbulican are not. This is exactly the same thing with religion - you are banning some religions, but not all of them; you're saying some religions are okay, but others are not. It's crap.

like I said before, you don't even know which sites they're banning.
If the sites are provoking aggressive behavior through spells (etc) then they're perfectly in the right. If students often go to those sites and get distracted reading them then yes, they're right.
If it is a discriminatory ban, it won't be very long for it to catch wind. If there is a lawsuit or some challenge of it and it is discriminatory, then they'll remove the ones being discriminated against.
Yet no one here knows which of those it is.

When the words are in the same verb phrase, and commas are used, all of those things are related items.  Also, it's not very often you see official documents randomly choosing the placing of the words instead of grouping them.\r\nNot to mention, when the dictionaries say "used especially as a mark of separation within the sentence" they mean that commas are used to separate different clauses within a sentence (ie: "[first subject/verb/complement], but [second subject/verb/etc]").\r\n[quote]Things I do not enjoy doing are praying, yoga, driving in bumper to bumper traffic, eating sushi or other raw food.[/quote]\r\nthat's a completely different example than what they were using.  also, most people would include occult practices in mysticism, and atheism came in the middle of those two terms.\r\n[quote]What if a school administrator decides that democratic websites are 'contrary' to the learning procedure, but republican websites are not?  That's what I'm getting at.  Either you should block a particular subject and *all* things included in it, or not at all.  You can't say democratic political websites are contrary to learning, but repbulican are not.  This is exactly the same thing with religion - you are banning some religions, but not all of them; you're saying some religions are okay, but others are not.  It's crap.[/quote]\r\nlike I said before, you don't even know which sites they're banning.  \r\nIf the sites are provoking aggressive behavior through spells (etc) then they're perfectly in the right.  If students often go to those sites and get distracted reading them then yes, they're right.\r\nIf it is a discriminatory ban, it won't be very long for it to catch wind.  If there is a lawsuit or some challenge of it and it is discriminatory, then they'll remove the ones being discriminated against.\r\nYet no one here knows which of those it is.

offline

HiddenDistance

1,310 posts

Peasant

Posted November 21, '09 11:36pm UTC

When the words are in the same verb phrase, and commas are used, all of those things are related items. Also, it's not very often you see official documents randomly choosing the placing of the words instead of grouping them.

Yes, they are related items - the relation of the group is "Alternative Spirituality/Belief", as made plainly clear at the beginning of that section in the official document; that's what makes the connecting factor for all of those terms, that they are not mainstream religion, not that they're all forms of mysticism - again, your mistake.

like I said before, you don't even know which sites they're banning.

Well, according to the policy any site with atheistic views is subject to ban.

If students often go to those sites and get distracted reading them then yes, they're right.

You're still missing the point. You quoted my example about politics, but you completely ignored it. Unless there is a religious studies course in the school, going and learning about the bible or koran or any other religion on the internet would be distracting and contrary to the learning process, yet they've decided not to ban mainstream religion as a website, only those of a minority nature. In the case of politics, I'm trying to show that a clearly biased administrator or board does not have the right to block content that they merely disagree with - in the same right it's the 1st amendment to the constitution, only in this circumstance it hits on "abridging the freedom of speech", not "law respecting an establishment of religion".

If it's truly about distraction, all religious websites of any kind would have to be banned for an edict from the school board or administrator to not be discriminatory.

[quote]When the words are in the same verb phrase, and commas are used, all of those things are related items.  Also, it's not very often you see official documents randomly choosing the placing of the words instead of grouping them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes, they are related items - the relation of the group is "Alternative Spirituality/Belief", as made plainly clear at the beginning of that section in the official document;  that's what makes the connecting factor for all of those terms, that they are not mainstream religion, not that they're all forms of mysticism  - again, your mistake.\r\n\r\n[quote]like I said before, you don't even know which sites they're banning. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, according to the policy [b]any[/b] site with atheistic views is subject to ban.\r\n\r\n[quote]If students often go to those sites and get distracted reading them then yes, they're right.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou're still missing the point.  You quoted my example about politics, but you completely ignored it. Unless there is a religious studies course in the school, going and learning about the bible or koran or any other religion on the internet would be distracting and contrary to the learning process, yet they've decided not to ban mainstream religion as a website, only those of a minority nature.  In the case of politics, I'm trying to show that a clearly biased administrator or board does not have the right to block content that they merely disagree with - in the same right it's the 1st amendment to the constitution, only in this circumstance it hits on "abridging the freedom of speech", not "law respecting an establishment of religion".\r\n\r\nIf it's truly about distraction, all religious websites of any kind would have to be banned for an edict from the school board or administrator to not be discriminatory.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted November 22, '09 1:07am UTC

Yes, they are related items - the relation of the group is "Alternative Spirituality/Belief", as made plainly clear at the beginning of that section in the official document; that's what makes the connecting factor for all of those terms, that they are not mainstream religion, not that they're all forms of mysticism - again, your mistake.

If we're going to use the context, then the fact that everything else in the paragraph is about either satanism or some form of a magic/spell-based religion, and they don't set aside a different sentence even though everything else is occult practices, voodoo, wicca, satanism, witchcraft, spells, incarnations, curses, and magic, the school board apparently includes atheism into all those views.

You're still missing the point. You quoted my example about politics, but you completely ignored it. Unless there is a religious studies course in the school, going and learning about the bible or koran or any other religion on the internet would be distracting and contrary to the learning process, yet they've decided not to ban mainstream religion as a website, only those of a minority nature. In the case of politics, I'm trying to show that a clearly biased administrator or board does not have the right to block content that they merely disagree with - in the same right it's the 1st amendment to the constitution, only in this circumstance it hits on "abridging the freedom of speech", not "law respecting an establishment of religion".

If it's truly about distraction, all religious websites of any kind would have to be banned for an edict from the school board or administrator to not be discriminatory.

I never said the school would be right if they are doing this to purposefully discriminate against "alternative spirituality/belief".
I said it would be right if students went to those sites and got themselves distracted by the sites. If you want me to be more specific here, then if the students were distracted by atheist/magic/satanist sites and not mainstream religious sites, then the school has every right to ban only those sites.

It could be that students were distracted by certain sites but not Christian ones, like I said, we don't know. I don't have enough evidence to work from -- no specifics or circumstances included in the article or the policy -- to know whether the school is right or not.

[quote]Yes, they are related items - the relation of the group is "Alternative Spirituality/Belief", as made plainly clear at the beginning of that section in the official document;  that's what makes the connecting factor for all of those terms, that they are not mainstream religion, not that they're all forms of mysticism  - again, your mistake.[/quote]\r\nIf we're going to use the context, then the fact that everything else in the paragraph is about either satanism or some form of a magic/spell-based religion, and they don't set aside a different sentence even though everything else is occult practices, voodoo, wicca, satanism, witchcraft, spells, incarnations, curses, and magic, the school board apparently includes atheism into all those views.\r\n[quote]You're still missing the point.  You quoted my example about politics, but you completely ignored it. Unless there is a religious studies course in the school, going and learning about the bible or koran or any other religion on the internet would be distracting and contrary to the learning process, yet they've decided not to ban mainstream religion as a website, only those of a minority nature.  In the case of politics, I'm trying to show that a clearly biased administrator or board does not have the right to block content that they merely disagree with - in the same right it's the 1st amendment to the constitution, only in this circumstance it hits on "abridging the freedom of speech", not "law respecting an establishment of religion".\r\n\r\nIf it's truly about distraction, all religious websites of any kind would have to be banned for an edict from the school board or administrator to not be discriminatory.[/quote]\r\nI never said the school would be right if they are doing this to purposefully discriminate against "alternative spirituality/belief".\r\nI said it would be right if students went to those sites and got themselves distracted by the sites.  If you want me to be more specific here, then if the students were distracted by atheist/magic/satanist sites and not mainstream religious sites, then the school has every right to ban only those sites.\r\n\r\nIt could be that students were distracted by certain sites but not Christian ones, like I said, we don't know.  I don't have enough evidence to work from -- no specifics or circumstances included in the article or the policy -- to know whether the school is right or not.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Indianapolis discrimination against atheists