Comments on: Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune

By: hoverFrog

hoverFrog — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:39:02 +0000

donna mchargue, I fear that you miss the point. You say “Its fine to have your rights,but don’t tread on mine.” but that is precisely what a mandatory moment of silence law does. It treads on the rights of individuals. There is nothing to prevent believers from having a voluntary moment of silence if they so wish it and no reason to try to stop that. It is only the interference in the lives of unbelievers that makes the actions of the Dawn Sherman’s of this world a necessity.

By: donna mchargue

donna mchargue — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:00:23 +0000

I think this whole thing is ridiculous.Those parents should be teaching their budding narcissist that its not just about her.Every student there has the option to pray to whatever “God “they worship or alternatively observe a moment of reflection.Just because this young lady can’t come up with an original thought for fifteen seconds a day doesn’t mean that others can’t.Its fine to have your rights,but don’t tread on mine.At the age of 14 children should be learning about cooperation and some measure of conformity for the greater good.

By: Friendly Atheist » High School Atheist to Be Honored

Friendly Atheist » High School Atheist to Be Honored — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:00:21 +0000

[...] Dawn Sherman (daughter of Rob Sherman) is about to receive a fantastic honor: In the spirit of courageous advocacy of freedom of speech, the John Peter Altgeld Award will be presented to Dawn Sherman, a student who challenged her high school’s implementation of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. Her initial lawsuit resulted in an injunction from U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman prohibiting the law’s continued observation at Buffalo Grove High School, then expanded into a class-suit allowing other students and school districts statewide to participate. Ultimately, on May 29, 2008, Gettleman applied the injunction to the entire State of Illinois while the constitutionality of the law is considered. [...]

By: eddie szkodzinski

eddie szkodzinski — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:37:26 +0000

as a great person once said don’t judge a person by thier race or religion but by thier personality and actions. now a todays we judge people by thier religion or group thier in not them personally.i am proud that my girlfriend dawn is athiest because that is what she is and nothing anyone says can change it.i am proud of her for her individualism and confidence agianest unfair laws

By: MikeClawson

MikeClawson — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:38:47 +0000

Yes, when we see others, we should see them as individuals and not as a part of a group.

I'd say it's a both/and. One of the keys to understanding people is to understand how their various group identities have shaped and formed them as individuals, but we should never reduce an individual to merely their group identity. For instance, being a white, Christian, educated, middle-class, Midwestern American male has certainly shaped much of who I am, but I don't want to be pigeon-holed as simply that. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but the parts are still important too. Or to put it another way, both psychology and sociology are important.

By: Linda

Linda — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:45:21 +0000

And the only means by which to forge this inclusive worldview is individualism.

Unbrainwashed, I understand your explanation of individualism, and I agree to an extent. Yes, when we see others, we should see them as individuals and not as a part of a group. That’s where my idea of making others more important comes in. When we first focus on accepting others as individuals before we demand that we be accepted by them, then progress can be made. I don’t know if we can ever achieve our goal of a unified human race when we continue to put ourselves (and our rights) first.

By: The Unbrainwashed

The Unbrainwashed — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:14:37 +0000

@ Linda and MikeC-
I fully agree that we need to look at the “we” in regards to unifying us as a human race. And the only means by which to forge this inclusive worldview is individualism. Maybe that sounds contradictory, but let me briefly expound on it. Religion and ethnic pride are inherently divisive ideologies, whether they incorporate racism or not. By dividing people amongst delineations inherited upon birth, as in the color of one’s skin or hair, the person becomes secondary to his inclusion in a group with others who share these arbitrary traits. By stressing the collective as opposed to the individual, we engage in too much classification in regards to petty and shallow characteristics. Instead of grouping people based on who they are, such as with talent, strength of character, sense of humor, we classify them according to birthright. We can never then become a unified humanity until those distinguishing factors become mitigated biologically (which won’t happen for a very long time).

I also disagree with your assertion that other people should be more important than oneself. But that’s a whole nother topic regarding ethics and even though it’s somewhat related, I think the above discussion is far more interesting.

By: literghost

literghost — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:59:33 +0000

Mike C. –

Only vaguely on-topic, but based on your 1/11 10:42 comment, I think you might enjoy reading Me to We by Craig and Marc Kielburger (link goes to Amazon).

That’s all I have to say…but I just can’t resist an opportunity to recommend reading material to someone…

– Miz L.

By: MikeClawson

MikeClawson — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:25:34 +0000

If you like the collective versus the individual so much, China would make a great place to live.

LOL, now who’s calling who the “communist”? Times sure do change, don’t they?

And thanks Linda; you clarified what I was trying to say very well.

By: Linda

Linda — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:24:10 +0000

Unbrainwashed said,

Religion, and its equally psychotic cousins ethnic pride and nationalism, are so preoccupied with creating an “us” and a “them”. People comprising both these groups desperately want to contend their value is derived from membership in a collective, rather than from being a unique individual who warrants value through their own actions and merit. It’s not only illogical to define oneself as a member rather than a person, it’s also dangerous (the danger is so strikingly obvious that I need not present an examples).

I have to disagree. Mike was not referring to “we” and “us” as a statement of separation between groups, but rather as unification. I believe he meant “we” the human race. It is my opinion that it is the self-serving individualism that separate the groups to begin with. That, and the unwillingness to make the other person or the group just as, if not more than, important as ourselves.

Your statement is a clear example of this. Your argument comes from a place of refusing to understand what the other person is trying to convey. You just want to make the other person wrong because of your assumptions that you choose to believe.