religion>
uncle herb
I think finding a constitional problem with a simple moment of silence in school is a *real* stretch.
Junior Brudinski
Eine Kleine Nachtmovement.
uncle herb
Another thing I should point out is that the Constitution calls for a separation of _church_ and state. Not from GOD and state. There is nothing wrong with the state promoting religion as long as it's nondenominational.
Flying Wombat
(1) who "cooks" the numbers that go into the Almanac?
(2) the world is still here. this shouldn't surprise anyone who hasn't gone off the deep end. maybe, just maybe, the failure of yet another self-styled prophet to bring about an apocalypse will bring a few more people to realize that they've been had.
Tunnel Rat
I'll just throw this in...The Britanica claims Christianity as the number one religion in the world at close to 1.3 billion members.
chester cheetah
"In God We Trust" doesn't bother me. The Founding Fathers had an unshakeable belief in Divine Providence, if not in any particular sectarian deity.
Flying Wombat
uncle herb: actually, it says something about not respecting an "Establishment of Religion"... there are religions which refer to Source as something other than the male "God"..
and often, "nondenominational" is a term used by people to refer to a generic version of "Christianity" as opposed to any individual organized church. if you mean the term to refer equally to Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Hun'a, Taoism, Animism (in all its forms), or any of the Shamanic teachings worldwide, then that's closer to what is Constitutionally accepted. but in some of those religions, it would be offensive to set aside time that is covertly intended for (Judeo-Christian) "prayer" or refer to a male "God"...
in addition, it is established that agnostics and atheists have Constitutional rights as well. indeed, their rights are equal to all others' rights with regard to government and religion.
Flying Wombat
also, legislative intent is important in establishing Constitutionality of any statute. enforcing silence as a backdoor to officially sanctioning prayer is one thing. using silence to allow an unruly class to settle down is quite another. if we use common sense, we needn't have legislatures trying to fool anyone as to their intent.
there was recently another item concerning religion and public schools.. the Seattle Times featured some articles, and some excellent letters-to-editor. I may try to post some of them, even without having an OCR scanner.
West
Jon Nailor -- do not *ever* address a message like that again to me. I hope you understand this. You're a crazy man, and you get your jollies, evidently, by swearing at people anonymously. Well, don't pick me for a target, because I won't stand for it.
And I think you know perfectly well what I said. I said, just to remind you, that the communist Chinese government has caused the figures on the number of non-Christians in the world to be skewed. And that's *all* I said.
You know that what I said is true.
And you know that what you did was to insult me and call me indecent names.
That makes you, Jon, an indecent person.
I don't give a rat's behind if you have this horrible, distasteful habit. I don't give a rat's behind if you have found people to take out your personal demons who love you to do it.
But if you're a sadist, it's your problem, you own it, and it's your responsibility.
You leave me the hell and gone out of it, understand?
And one more thing-- if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, then you have no business being on a public BBS. So straighten yourself up and address me like a man, Jon, and not a two year old child. You go back and read my post for what it is, and stop being so afraid of your own religion that you can't even make a civil post in a room about religion.
Got it?
Jon Nailor
Rocker - Ditto and amen. I fully agree. But I guess that does not count much in they're eyes since I am not Christian. Well It be interesting to see me go to Heaven and The Bible Thumping Elites went to hell ( a place I do not believe exists).
I speak from experience here....If the Bible says Judge not, lest ye be judged; why do you christains still condemn us nonbelievers to Hell? Is that not a judgement?
Or if that is not a judgement then is tell me I am totally wrong for the way I believe a judgement?
I Have run into many Bible Thumpers that just drove me further away from the church. If a church allows such Closed minded people to go out and "recuit" new members, That is not the right religion for me.
Ruadh
Can anyone fill in the gaps in my memory on this one? The wording in the Constitution goes something like: "The State shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion...."
Which stemmed essentially from the constitution of the Commonwealth of VA, because that glorious colony (sarcasm alert) had as its established church the Church of England. People were required by law to go to church on Sunday, fined if they didn't, and put in jail if they adhered to a nonconforming sect such as the Baptists (who consequently went further South to escape persecution; leading to a high concentration of Baptist types in the South, of course, today.) George Mason and good ol' Tommy Jefferson agitated to get religious freedom made a part of the VA laws. Patrick Henry fought them every step of the way, I think. That's the history lesson of the day, kiddies.
But back on the topic of establishment of religion: I think it would be a good idea for schools to teach comparative religion at the same time as they teach world history, in grade school and high school. Not as a way of saying, "this is what you should believe" but as a way of introducing kids to what other people believe. We do this in state colleges, anyways. But the more conservative elements would probably object on the principle that this wouls oops - would somehow corrupt the tender young minds of their kids by introducing strange and demonic religious elements.... I think it would bring tolerance and understanding of other peoples' points of view. Some folks, of course, think this is a bad thing.
The Devil
I support Sin, Decadance, and Corruption. Does that make me Evil? I'm a Hedonist. So? If it feels good, do it!
Lady Non Sequitur
Lady Non pulls out her trust little pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and quotes:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment I, ratified efective December 15, 1791.
Whippersnapper
Flying Wombat, the LEAST you can do is to base your anti-Christian arguments on some semblance of fact.
The Term "non-denominational" means simply "of no particular religion or group" and nothing else. It has no specific relation to Christianity.
Redefining the language so you'll have a basis for opposition to another's statements is rather a long stretch. It smacks of extreme bias, desperation or both.
I know no Hindu, Moslem or Buddhist who would have any cause to be offended by a "moment of silence." And I know people of those persuasions and others. The worst that could be said of it is that it is a waste of time. Any other argument I've seen so far looks like knee-jerk anti-religious diatribe.
The fact that our Constitution precludes regulation of religion is systematically twisted into de facto opposition to religion in many respects. A non-denominational approach to specifically-legalized religious observance is a graceful solution. Why oppose it? This sort of thing could help reconcile the issue considerably. I view it as an excellent precedent.
The non-religious are unhurt and unsolicited. It can harm no one, and should help set some good standards for manners, for school kids to give others a respectful moment for their observances.
It comes down to good manners, as I see it. When I share a meal with a family that observes the tradition of "saying grace," I naturally sit through it silently and respectfully. This is their culture, and strongly-held beliefs at work.
Isn't it just realistic to acknowledge religion in so general a way in the school environment?
Lady Non Sequitur
I'm undecided about a moment of silence, but I am reminded of something a teacher of mine once said when we were discussing it in his class. He pointed out that the quality of the moment of silence was completely dependent upon the teacher, and that children do learn by example. If the teacher sits, quietly, hands folded, that's one thing, he said. But what if the teacher crosses him or herself Catholic style or makes other obviously religious gestures? He himself was against a moment of silence, becuase he felt there was no need for it -- there was all of homeroom for those children who wished to pray to do so. Had any of them been hassled for praying, he would have chastised the hasslers. He just viewed the moment of silence as specifically prayer oriented because no reasons for it were put forth *by the children who'd have to sit through it* except for prayer. Nor were the people espousing the idea anything but Christians, at least in our area.
I have seen Christianity thrown in the face of children who didn't believe it. At the bacchalaureate thrown before I graduated from high school, supposed to be a non-denominational blessing of the graduates from all religios faiths, the one Jewish student in my class was forced to sit through (and not warned that it would be so) a diatribe about accepting Jesus Christ or going to hell. It is very difficult, I think, to teach children to be accepting of other people's religious beliefs when given such examples by the adults. And so I think it not only possible, but very likely that teachers, especially the more religious ones, will turn the moment of silence into prayer.
uncle herb
It strikes me as a humongous, monstrous-sized stretch to turn an officially sanctioned moment of silence into a "law respecting an establishment of religion." Since we're discussing original intent here, the original intent of the Framers was to prevent the establishment of an official national church, such as the Church of England. The United States has been, from the very beginning, "one nation under God," First Amendment included.
And I'm an agnostic.
Biff
With reference to the largest religion. There is a difference as to actual christians versus those who claim to be christians. If the truth would be told, I believe the biggest religion would be self (humanism). I believe[Anumber of actual Christians (the non-political type is probably less than 10%. The number who claim to be christian in america are 47% (Barna Report, 1992)
Tunnel Rat
uncle herb: That's the only part of the Con that should be changed...
Maybe it should read: ...one nation under the Umbrella of Many Faiths, Including Atheism.
night train
Senators leap up and bray for death penalty with unwavering authority ... Christ bled ... Time ran out...
huncke the junkie
Uncle Herb, I think that "one nation under God" thing was added to the pledge in the 50s. Also, I don't think you can go by original intent strictly. They originally intended to deny women the vote, and black's their freedom.
Lady Non Sequitur
not to mention the fact that a good number of the founding fathers didn't believe every man even should have the right to vote, believing them incapable of informed decisions ... not that I disagree from them, but it's a hell of a far cry from the democratic principles we claim to adhere to these days.
West
Ruadh, let me add that there is one more proviso about religion to be found in the main body of the Constitution, under Article 6, which says that there can be no religious test for any office or trust under the United States of America.
Well, to quote, "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
West
Whippersnapper, we've been through this before, but I'll say it again. The reason for requiring very high standards for the inclusion of religion in government, such a moment of silence, is the long history of abuse of religious power in this very country we are living in right now.
If it were not for that, the standards would not be as high as they are, there would be no rational suspicion that moments of silence are camal noses under tents.
But in fact, in reality, applying to common sense, applying to common reason-- any child can just plain pray his or her heart out in school. I'm quite sure that plenty of prayers are uttered right before spelling tests in every school in the nation. I'm quite sure that during recess, plenty of prayers are uttered by children with bats waiting for the pitcher to try to run his fast-ball past the plate. I'm quite sure that those children who are used to thanking God for the food they are about to receive do so, quietly, at lunch time.
In short, there is absolutely no real restriction on the reasonable practice of anyone's religion in schools. There is absolutely no need to set aside a moment of silence for anything at all, because there is every opportunity for many moments of silence during each and every school day. And I think we both know that, and so does the Supreme Court.
The history of the moment of silence is no secret. This is the last ditch attempt, the last of a long series of more blatant attempts, by various religious groups of several denominations, to put religion back in to government and to use the coercive power of government, driven by the money of tax payers who have no choice in the matter, to gain control over the minds of impressionable youngsters.
I understand the attempt. I can sympathize with the thoughts of people who so little trust the appeal of their own religion to try to force religion in general on inexperienced and authority dependent kids.
But as far as I am concerned, this must be kept to the appropriate places, and those places are the home, the mosque, the synagogue and other houses of worship.
In short, the problem is not moment of silence. We had that when I was in the begining grades. It was called nap time. The problem is that the history of abuse is far too clear to ignore, and the source and intent of the agenda of those who promulgate the moment of silence is as open as their Bibles.
huncke the junkie
Yeah, I don't see the big deal. Why do these people get so bent out of shape ûand insist on some form of prayer--moment of silence or whatever--in school. Anyone can pray all they want whenever they want. Why insist everyone else has to stand in silence when they do?
uncle herb
Why insist that people *not* be granted a moment of silence? Citing historical abuse is the kind of extreme paranoia-based logical fallacy that also leads people to claim that modern day whites are guilty for slavery and should pay through the nose.
Lady Non Sequitur
Uncle herb, what about the current, on-going abuse? Go to schools in the south, you'll find it.
Flying Wombat
West: again, well said. yes, we've been through this before. not everyone seemed to listen to reason then, and it may not be any different now.. this time, I'll only listen to reason; I don't have time to respond to emotionalism, at least not this week...
Spur
oh yeah, did i mention religion sucks rawks
Whippersnapper
You're simply wrong, Cave Bear. There IS restriction of religious practice in American schools. And you are using the same kind of "reasoning" that has served to alter Constitutional *non-regulation* of religion to mean *rejection* of it.
If you really don't object to people praying whenever they like, why object to this unoffending rule, except to justify that flawed rationale?
You act as though it's somehow natural to expect all persons of any religious persuasion to exclude that very central aspect of their lives from their school day IN PARTICULAR. In fact, the place for religion is NOT in the Church or the Synagogue, but in the heart and mind of the adherent, wherever he happens to be.
You'd evidently greatly prefer that others' religious views reside in some distant building rather than in close proximity to the oh-so-impressionable minds of their fellow students. Such inordinate wariness just doesn't compute unless you factor in a belief that religion is inherently bad or wrong. Which is an opinion I haven't seen adequately supported - especially since there's considerable evidence for the correlation of a good many monstrous social and personal ills with the ABSENCE of religious faith.
In any case, there's more than enough judicial vigilance on the subject to ensure the camel's nose is all that enters this tent, Cave Bear. You needn't feel so threatened.
huncke the junkie
Uncle Herb, they can take a moment of silence very easily pretty much whenever they want. I was raised Catholic and every night we said grace before eating. When I ate as a guests at non-Catholic friends who didn't say grace, I just said it to myself silently. I didn't insist they join me, or stop talking or whatever, while I was praying.
Diakonos
Biff - YUP!
Thomas Jefferson
"You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" How can we argue with logic like that?
Alinea
My dad said that his guess would be about 1% of Americans are actually really real genuine Christians.
shane
ahh said "gimmie indie religion!!"
Ruadh
Quite right, LNS.
I would not object to a moment of silence, as long as people are respected, no matter what their beliefs. Or if people are allowed to read, if they want to. But that's probably asking too much in this silly country of ours.
uncle herb
right on, Whippersnapper!
Buster Hymen
I object to a moment of silence, because it's a moment wasted. Nobody's listening anyway. And what would they listen to? It's silence.
Besides, can't God hear a prayer over background noise?
Wormy Chestnut
Elementary school teachers everywhere are frightened to tell the kids that it's "quiet time."
Diakonos
Alinea - Hmmmm, that's kind of pretty. If I were still having kids, I might name one of them Alinea.
Okay, sorry, back on-topic now!
Saint Bob
Supposedly.
huncke the junkie
That's cause they grow elementary school kids big these days
West
TO ALL:
The history of abuse of religion in schools is not ancient history. This is not like blaming slavery on present day whites. And in fact, to be quite honest about it, let's admit that no one is blaming slavery on present day whites. That's just a phoney excuse to continue oppressing Blacks so that whites will not have so much competition in the work place, and that's all it is. The fact is that although slavery was ended, we had the false rationalization of separate but equal until the Court ended it, at least on paper, in our very own generation.
Well, it's the same exact thing with religion in schools. The person who said that he though that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Alliegiance in the 50s is quite right. I was in school when it was added.
And Whippersnapper is just plain wrong. He cites only one third of the Constitutional protections against excessive mixture between Church and State.
He cites only that part which says that Congress shall make no law restricting religious practice. But he makes no mention of the other half of the First Amendment strictures; that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.
That does not mean 'a' religion. It means any and all religions. It means that no religion may be vaunted above all other religions and it means that religion may not be vaunted above non-religion. It means that agnostics and atheists are human beings with full rights too.
And Whippersnapper and others here also forget or don't know about the third part, Article VI, which says that there cannot be any religious test for qualification to *any* office or public trust under the United States.
Nothing in the world can be more clear than that the Constitution encompasses the strongest possible provisos guarding against the formation of *any* theocracy under the United States.
That means that my tax money cannot be spent by anyone, no matter how kind or well meaning, to promote *any* religious agenda whatsoever in my public schools. And it means that no person, no matter how kind or well meaning, can spend my tax dollars to support any agenda of any kind to promote atheism or agnosticism.
In this nation, religion has special protections the like of which no other sector approaches. Religious institutions pay no taxes. This is to prevent the power of taxation being used as a power of destruction toward any or all religion. Religious institutions can keep their books closed to government so long as they are a genuine religious institution and not a scam. Things can be done and said in the name of religion which for any other party would constitute slander or libel or any other form of defamation of character. During Prohibition, alcohol could be used as a drink for just two purposes, medicinal and religious, because Congress could make no law prohibiting Catholics and others from using wine as a sacrament.
Religion is NOT being attacked by government. Christians and other people of religion are not only NOT being martyred, but enjoy more rights with respect to their religion than any other sector enjoys with respect to any other practices.
There is a vast network of churches and synagogues and mosques and other houses of religion in this nation. By far the majority of Americans hold some religious beliefs and treasure them. Religion has the most constitutional protection of any sector, and I think that is as plain as anything can be.
There are obviously appropriate places and institutions for the promulgation of every religion, and they *all* enjoy the virtual use of public money through being relieved of paying any share of the public taxation.
So, when I hear martyr being cried, I know it's false. When I hear that we must have religion practiced openly in public schools, because religion is so weak and so beset that it cannot survive without spending public money to brainwash children, I know something fishy is going on, because what I am hearing clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
This is NOT political correctness, this is NOT an all-atheist government out to crush religion, this is NOT ancient history, the abuses of religion having been treated only in our very own generation by the Supreme Court.
This is a fight between well meaning people who wish to impose in any way they can their own religious beliefs on children and those who wish to support and continue their legal, constitutional rights against having their own tax dollars used against their own wishes to do something fundamentally illegal, inappropriate and unnecessary.
Leave public prayer out of public schools and leave it where it belongs, in private at schools, at home, and in the tens of thousands of churches of every denomination to be found in almost all neighborhoods in the United States of America.
uncle herb
And thanks to the NRA, they're all well-trained in riflemanry
rye whiskey
Damn straight. We pay our hard-earned money to make sure they stand together in a moment of prayful silence to ensure our nation's social fabric stay intact.
Biff
Athiesm cannot be defined as a faith -- rather as "the absence of faith"
Whippersnapper
Wow, West, what a rant!
But you're interpreting the HELL out of the Constitution without looking at what it SAYS. Despite even the fact you're quoting it!
Personally, I understand and agree with every Constitutional reference to religion.
It says CONGRESS shall make no law... CONGRESS. And it delegates everything not specific to the Constitution's own outline of Federal patterns, limitations and responsibilities to the STATES.
You may view a state's legalization or mandate of a non-denominational "moment of silence" as a move towards theocracy, but I seriously doubt many would interpret it that way. It requires some semantic acrobatics and gray-area interpretation to twist even the Constitution's limitations on Congress (which doesn't limit the STATES!) against this particular legislation.
You are evidently frothingly, rabidly opposed to religion, or perhaps to Christianity in particular. But something you AREN'T is a Constitutional scholar or a legal wizard.
Rocker
Right on West. As usual, beautifully stated. When I was in school, the only "moments of silence" we observed were in memorial for someone who had died. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the moment itself, it is the intent behind it that needs to be looked at and questioned.
While I'm here I'd like to reply to John. I found your reply to my post to be flattering but incoherent, maybe I just didn't get what I read.
I do want you to know, that I'm a freind of West's and take exception to your attacking him. He's a big boy and I know can defend himself but I want you to know that I don't like it either so KNOCK IT OFF!
John
I'm listening to Tao Buddhist philosophy on some low-power FM station. A Christian broadcast about Jesus is bleeding into the Buddhist one. Wow, what a contrast.
West
Whippersnapper, that's pretty funny, your claiming to know the Constitution up and down and telling me that one thing I'm not is a Constitutional expert.
Well, I never claimed to be an expert, you know. But I know something very large that you don't. It's the Fourteenth Amendment, and it extends quite a few of the Bill of Rights guarantees to the states, contrary to what you claim.
Two of those items which are extended to the states are the guarantees on freedom of religion and separation of Church and State in the First Amendment, which you would certainly know if you'd read your case law. And I suggest that you hie yourself to the nearest library branch and do so. In fact, I guess you can just call the Library on line service and order up a slew of case law books which they will send you by mail.
Now, I may not be a consitutional lawyer or judge, but I think the Supreme Court cases were briefed and argued by some of the sharpest constitutional lawyers and decided by Justices who, if they are not constitutional experts, will have to do until some real ones come along.
The last I heard, the Supreme Court was not calling you up to find out how to decide their cases, so I guess I'll have to continue referencing them and not you when it comes to the law of the land.
As to your *personal* attack on me, your silly claim that because I disagree, loudly, with your entirely incorrect interpretation of how things are I must be rabidly anti-religion or anti-Christian, well I guess we both know that when people do that as a substitute for arguing the facts of the case, as you are doing, it's because they've figured out that they *can't* argue on the facts and must argue personalities.
And I think we both know just how convincing that kind of argument is.
Just to make it clear as crystal for you--I have a deep and abiding respect for religion, including Christianity. What I object to, and will continue to object to, is the unnecessary invasion of my constitutional and quite rational rights by fanatic *people*, who may be very good hearted people, but who have lost their perspective to the point of trying to trample those rights.
And I don't hate them, either. I just want them to calm down, realize that they aren't the possessors of all knowledge of right and wrong, and leave everyone else's rights alone.
Flying Wombat
well. West, as usual your observations are worth reading (and heeding) by any sane individual. the ad hominem attacks should come as no surprise; I've also been called the same names, and wrongly termed "anti-religious" because I oppose the abuses committed by extremists under the guise of religion -- not only political and social abuses, but I also cannot in good conscience support or recommend the teaching of misconceptions and distortion of what were originally good spiritual teachings. I don't care whether this stand is popular amongst the modeming audience, just like I wouldn't pick a religion to believe in based on the number of followers.
in fact, if a member of a religious hierarchy is concerned with the number of followers they attract and hold, then it is immutably true that there is an element of ego and self-importance involved.
Flying Wombat
John @ SOD: which station was that? and yes, there would be quite a contrast.
John
I think it was KCMU. At about 4am.
Whippersnapper
West, you say: "Well, I never claimed to be an expert, you know. But I know something very large that you don't. It's the Fourteenth Amendment, and it extends quite a few of the Bill of Rights guarantees to the states, contrary to what you claim."
This is some pretty damned incredibly broad language, chuck full not only of insinuating falsehood about my knowledge and intent; it is a MISstatement of the content of the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of our debate.
First: I DO know what the Constitution says. And I'm familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, I don't see where any of that Amendment's language is directly or INdirectly salient to the subject at hand.
How about I just quote it directly?
The 14th Amendment has five (5) parts. The first part I will quote in full because I assume it is what you're referring to.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is essentially a statement that citizenship rights are not to be abridged by the States. The other sections establish matters of representation, disqualifications for office, validity of public debt and Congressional power to enforce the article.
Now, get specific. How does that Amendment serve to make the "moment of silence" law of a state somehow illegal?
The Second Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Now, I do understand the somewhat twisted, antagonistic reasoning that makes that statement into a justification for virtual prohibition of religion in relation to public facilities and public funds. But I happen to think the "free exercise thereof" part of that statement is getting short shrift.
Look closely, there. It says CONGRESS shall make no law. CONGRESS. Though I agree it would be a violation of that Amendment's intent (and of other Constitutional law) for a State to engage in religious repression, it remains that it says what it says. It refers specifically to Congress. Not that I mind that it is extended further as a practice.
The Fourteenth Amendment canNOT be construed to specifically make the Second Amendment binding on the states in ANY case. But in such a case as this, where there is certainly no clear violation even of that Amendment's intent, it is doubly irrelevant to cite the Fourteenth Amendment for the purpose!
You can cite those case law references yourself, thank you. I'm certainly not much interested. Some of the legal precedents which manage to relate the "separation of church and state" issue to the virtual prohibition that is now exercised, were touch-and-go split decisions by a Supreme Court that was certainly never meant to rewrite or re-interpret such fundamental Constitutional clauses. It's simply authoritarian, and cowardly avoidance of principled debate, to cite "law" so derived as the final word on the matter.
For that reason and many others, I prefer the Constitution itself as my reference. That, and my reasonably good understanding of its writers' intent provide me with interpretation enough.
I say that for Congress (or the Supreme Court, or anyone) to PROHIBIT a "moment of silence" wherever and whenever it might reasonably be observed, is in direct violation of the first sixteen words of the First Amendment!
You imply I attempt to establish the law of the land in some arrogant manner (of which you are oh-so-innocent). You imply I would see rights abridged. You imply all manner of insulting things. And you puff up with indignance at *my* comments? I'm unimpressed. And a little pleased you've become so ruffled, I must admit.
I'm simply stating my opinion, and supporting it with my reasoning, and with facts. It is I, not you, who QUOTE the Constitutional clauses you interpret so freely. It is you, not I, who effectively demand of others that they hide their religions away.
I think your real intentions are clear enough. All your professed respect for religion becomes so many words when your NEXT immediate comment is a revulsion at "fanatics." Unlike you, I fail to see fanaticism at work in this "moment of silence" issue. I think it requires a measure of paranoia to do so. And it requires a hearty DISrespect of others' religions to promote the view you do.
Whippersnapper
Flying Wombat, I'd appreciate it if you'd elucidate. Maybe it's just me, but I think you've left some things out.
What "teachings of misconception" are forwarded by the "moment of silence" rule?
And what "abuses" will be "committed by extremists" under its sinister cover?
It would also please me to hear your description of exactly what those "originally good spiritual teachings" were, and what "distortions" those are that concern you so deeply.
I'm sure you don't want to seem to trash others' religious beliefs in too general a way. It would help if you were more specific, of course.
Your "immutable" truism might also benefit from some illumination by way of example.
It's all right - take your time.
Whippersnapper
History is chuck-full of peculiar religions, bizarre beliefs and weird customs. Much of it would be hilarious if only it weren't taken seriously by so many poor fools. But sometimes it makes darn good sense despite its trappings of myth and ceremony. Sometimes it's hauntingly beautiful, a graceful way of life for all its naivete in the face of the proofs of science.
I'm not so sure the standard present-day "accepted" scholarly version of reality is any different than the rest. Man is an animal (and nothing more)! We're all a brief anomaly of the chance chemistry of the Big Bang's residue! You're a phenomenon of the electrochemistry of a primate brain that evolved for rock-throwing and tool use on the African savannah! You're a biological machine; a piece of adaptable, genetically-programmed meat!
If it weren't such a tragically COLORLESS lot of speculation, and so full of futility and hopelessness, that stuff would fit in quite nicely with ancestor worship and voodoo rites, rain dances and the Mardi Gras. Just another belief system of the native Earthlings.
No matter how damnably RIGHT you think your view of the world is; no matter how SURE you are that most or all the rest of us are shockingly mistaken; the LEAST you can do is now and then back off about ten feet from the whole comedy. Look it over! Where's the harm in letting people HAVE what they believe in?
I can't disagree that we can do without the political dominance of any particular package of superstition and forced morality. Such circumstance has withered the hopes and enslaved the minds of half the world's peoples (if not all) at one time or another.
But what kind of despicable ARROGANCE is it that makes some of us want to slap heads and shut mouths at every opportunity, just because some "ism's" adherent carries his ideas over the threshold of a Government-subsidized institution?
Whatever happened to the simple and universal concept of good manners?
This domineering attitude absolutely SCREAMS of self-importance; the "I know best" attitude of the worst kind of political ideologue.
Are YOU, West -- or YOU, Flying Wombat -- somehow empowered to know that every last person with any "organized" religious belief carries the seed of our children's destruction?
Are you and your ilk somehow in possession of the divine right to decide FOR every community across a variegated country of 260 million people, that they must draw maps with zones and borders? "No religion here!" "Prayer in this zone only!" "No proselytizing beyond this line!"
Yeah. Keep that stuff in the home. Cover it with your hat 'till you're in the synagogue. Mutter "grace" over your school lunch at risk of ridicule (and a trip to the Godless counselor if you object). Tell your friends about Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha on THAT side of the City Hall's property line. Get your parents to tell you why the Big Bang isn't in the Holy Book (we only deal in FACTUAL myths here...).
"My version of reality is better than yours, because I went to college and learned bloodletting and Insulin Shock Therapy. Nyahh-nyah." Who's to say the standard curriculum doesn't contain as much narrow-mindedness and barbarism as it did 50 or 100 or 500 years ago? Where's your sense of PERSPECTIVE?
John
I really don't like agreeing with Whip. I wish the knob-heads who are attacking him would catch a clue.
But I don't know what "chuck-full" is.
You know my angle? If a "moment of silence" forces the squirmy, sex-charged youth of our great land to sit still and be quiet for at least ten seconds a day, that sounds like a reasonable thing to me.
Elisabeth Perrin
For someone arguing the Constitution Whippersnapper, I'd hope you'd get it right. The Second Amendment is about guns. The First Amendment is about both free speech AND religion.
Spur
fuck, face it: the public system promotes a system of ethics and an epistemology all its own. they tell you not to do drugs. theres morality for you, and its really no different than telling you to go to church every sunday. it tells you columbus discovered america, thats no different than telling you that god created woman out of adams rib.
my religion teaches that drugs are the key to enlightenment and that you should do as many as possible. that dare officer? hes violating my constitutional rights by promoting teachings contrary to my religion.
my religion teaches that life is made up of bacteria. the school system is promoting my religion in its biology classes, whereas my brothers religion which states that all life is animated only by the will of God and that were all filled with helium is being persecuted.
the whole things is fucked, riddled with inconsistencies.
Gayle Stormsong
They say the Lord works in strange ways.
Buster Hymen
They should stop saying that.
John
I've read the Constitution many times.
And if it gets in the way of the right thing, than even the Constitution can go to hell.
Thanks for the lecture, Dad. Can I be excused now?
(Incidentally, I simultaneously know the text of the Amendment in question, AND believe that a moment of silence doesn't violate it. AMAZING!)
Whippersnapper
I concur, John.
Jon Nailor
<Topic Drift> <Sarcasm Alert> I can not believe what I am seeing. You Christians are grinding us non-Christians into the ground and when we bring up a question you all either ignore us or don't give a coherent reply. Well here it is from your bible, Judge not less ye be judge. If you can't show enough courtisy<sp> then I hope you will not burn in your hell.
West
Whippersnapper, I and others have given you a history of religous abuse in this nation. I and others have given you our own experiences with this. I told you about being faced up by my school mates with the very hostile question, "Why did you kill our Lord?" Others have told you similar stories.
These you dismissed as being something that happens only in some towns somewhere past your attention or concern.
Children have been forced to sing Christian songs, and pray Christian prayers in public schools when those things were anathema to them. Children who belong to religous which forbid the taking of oats have been forced to salute the flag and repeat the Pledge of Alliegance, even though those things were anathema to them. But you dismiss this as ancient history, although these things were changed only by the actions of the Supreme Court, and probably all of them within your own lifetime, even though I suspect that you are much younger than I.
You simply dismiss the history of abuse as though it never existed; but the truth is that it did. The truth is that the people who put forward the notion of a moment of silence are the very same groups which started out with wanting Christian prayers back in the public schoolrooms, and they have slowly but surely backed up to the moment of silence as one Court decision after another which supported your rights and mine forced them away from an immediate accomplihement of their goal. But the goal hasn't changed. And if they win this, then they will go onto the next step, just as the Prohibitionists did, even though deniers at the time thought it could never happen. It did happen. And it was a disaster.
As to dissenting opinions, of course there are. Rarely is a Supreme Court decision unanimous. But so what? This isn't a single decision made by a single Court. These are a long string of decisions made by several Courts.
The wall between Church and State is a good thing for both, Whippersnapper. It protects religion more than any other institution is protected in this country. And you are being destructive, and anti-religious when you keep urging people to lay religious institutions open to harm by government and the private sector.
Is it that you only pose as a supporter of religion, hoping that your audience won't be able to figure out that all the time you are plotting and planning the overthrow of free religion in the United States?
Are you still, somehow, receiving money from the Communist Party, even though communism suffered such a great defeat in the ex-Soviet Union?
Well, I don't know what devils drive you. If you are the Anti-Christ, or just a dupe of Satan. But I do know that religion, under the doctrine of separation of Chursh and State has thrived in America, while in those states where government takes it over, only one religion survives, and that is the religion of rule by Divine Right, or what is the same thing, Rule by the divine inspiration of Marx through the "science" of dialectical materialism.
You too, under the guise of a "scientific" religion, are trying to tear down religion by debarring it from its special protections, and that might make a person wonder if the two "scientific" religions, yours and Marxism, aren't really tied together in some hidden, even occult, way.
Well, just as you have dismissed reality, the law, the Court and everything else that makes reason, in order to support your strange and suspicious agenda, I suppose that you'll dismiss this too, and act as though you are outraged that I would accuse you of being a souless, atheistic Communist.
But you know the old saying. If the shoe fits...
JayDee
yeah
what Jon said
Flying Wombat
Date: 12 May 1994 07:20:53 -0400
Three R's in California School District Include Religious Right
By William Hamilton, Washington Post Staff Writer
VISTA, Calif. - In the ideological wars consuming more and more school boards around the country, this San Diego suburb of 76,000 is ground zero.
Since a conservative majority was elected two years ago, the trustees of the Vista Unified School District - as board members are known - have moved from one volatile issue to another, turning each meeting into an angry shouting contest as they debate policies on family values and creationism. While most of the changes so far have been symbolic, the trustees are now overhauling sex education policies to teach that premarital sex between minors is unhealthy and illegal.
People for the American Way, a liberal civil liberties group, has called Vista "the prime example of the religious right taking control of a school board." Joyce Lee, a member of the board, counters that the only people with an ideological agenda are the board's critics, who she says are out "to make conservatives look like bigots, to make it look like we've all plotted together."
By their very nature, school boards invite controversy; few areas of public policy involve as much emotional investment as the way children are educated. But in the past few years, the nation's 15,200 school boards have become especially bloody battlegrounds, primarily because of a concerted campaign by right-wing groups such as the Christian Coalition and the Committee for Excellence in Education (CEE) to elect board members.
Groups such as CEE have made no secret of their intentions. Vista, said Robert Simonds, who founded CEE in neighboring Orange County in 1983, "is a microcosm of what's happening all over America." "We tried for six years to get school boards to listen," Simonds said. "At the end of six years of begging, we said they're not listening, so we said, okay, there's a remedy provided by the Constitution... . We're going to go ahead and encourage parents to run."
Martha M. McCarthy, an Indiana University education professor who has studied conservative challenges to public education, said Bill Clinton's election in 1992 provided added "impetus" to right-wing groups to focus on local elected bodies because conservatives feared that the federal government, after 12 years of Republican control, would become hostile to their positions.
Rising concern among educators led Thomas A. Shannon, executive director of the National School Boards Association, to warn his members against "hysterical" overreaction. But there is no doubt that conservative candidates are making inroads.
After last fall's election, 7,153 of the 95,000 school board members in the country are "Christian" or conservative, according to Simonds, who claims that CEE sympathizers constitute a majority on more than 2,250 school boards. He added that he does not like giving out such figures because of the kind of controversy that has embroiled the Vista board. "They've taken it on the chin," said Simonds.
Opposition has been generated in school boards around the country in places as disparate as: Loudoun County, Va., where conservatives are a significant force on the 11-member board; New York City, where the Christian Coalition claimed that 66 candidates supportive of its "pro-family" agenda were elected to community
boards last November; and Round Rock, Tex., where a conservative board voted to reinstate prayer at graduation ceremonies. Conservatives backed by evangelist Pat Robertson recently failed in a similar bid to take over the Virginia Beach school board.
Conservative candidates in these localities have criticized specific programs such as sex education. But their more general demand is to restore the right of parents to control the education of their children - an approach that in McCarthy's view has greatly strengthened their appeal.
"The bottom line in all of this is, who's in control of the children here?" said John Tyndall, chairman of the Vista board. "Is it the state or is it the parents?"
Like Lee, Tyndall thinks the criticism of the Vista board is designed to blur that basic issue by caricaturing board members as Christian fundamentalists intent on imposing their religious beliefs on the public schools. Religion, he contends, is a "smoke screen."
(continued in next message)
Flying Wombat
(continued from previous message)
Tyndall acknowledges his own fundamentalist theology: He is an accountant with a creationist research center. But he says that has nothing to do with the board's goal of improving academic achievement and ensuring that students are taught a basic moral code.
"What are they trying to invoke in people's minds when the word fundamentalist is used?" said Tyndall. "It's trying to convey that we're out of the mainstream of the public, and I don't believe that's true."
Critics of CEE and other conservative groups have focused on the tactics that conservative candidates have used in running for office. People for the American Way, in particular, has criticized "stealth" candidates who have not fully disclosed their positions.
"This arena is one that's very inviting and vulnerable to political organizations that mobilize small but intense groups of voters," said Michael Kirst, a professor of education at Stanford University.
The model stealth campaign, according to People for the American Way, took place here in San Diego County in 1990, when more than 90 conservative candidates ran for school board and other offices. By confining their campaigns to churches, the group charged, these candidates were able to mobilize a potent constituency without alerting their opponents, and nearly two-thirds won their races.
"So successful were these 'stealth' candidates that many of the long-term school board members who found themselves voted out of office that year reported later that they were frankly unaware that their reelections were in any jeopardy whatsoever until election night," Matthew Freeman, People for the American Way's research director, wrote in a report last year.
Two years later, the group contends, candidates identified with the religious right won only half as many seats because opponents were more organized. But in Vista, Tyndall and Lee won easily, joining a third conservative, Deidre Holliday, elected in 1990, to form a majority on the five-member board.
"John Tyndall and I were no stealth candidates," said Lee. "People knew who we were."
With voter turnout at 77 percent, Lee won more than 19,000 votes, followed by Tyndall and Linda Rhoades, who campaigned against the conservatives.
Rhoades concedes that Tyndall and Lee won not because of a stealth campaign, but because she and her allies did not make an effective case against them. "I think we may have shot ourselves in the foot," she said. "We kind of ran as a bloc and we said, 'Guess what? They're here,' and we sounded like the Looney Tunes, quite honestly."
Since taking power, the conservative majority has prevailed in a string of 3 to 2 votes. Many of its victories have been largely symbolic, including the passage last summer of a new policy on creationism that encourages teachers to tell students about "scientific evidence" that challenges evolution.
But recently the board has taken steps that directly affect what goes on in the classroom. In March, the board voted to replace the school system's sex education program for seventh-graders with one that teaches that premarital sex is harmful and illegal, and that birth control is dangerous.
The new policies, opposed by the teachers union, outside liberal groups and hundreds of angry parents, have given added momentum to a campaign to recall Tyndall, Lee and Holliday. And new controversies are on the horizon. To many conservatives, no recent policy so epitomizes the intrusion of the state more than "outcomes-based education" - an innocuous-sounding bit of educational jargon that has generated enormous heat. "OBE," as it
is known, is an outgrowth of educational reform efforts aimed at testing student performance by measuring critical abilities, not just factual knowledge. But to critics, the tests represent an attempt by government to undermine parental control by imposing its own notion of values. The tests could some day result in students being "denied a diploma for refusing to adopt the state's 'politically correct' views on environmentalism, global citizenship
Under pressure from conservative groups, many states, including Virginia, have backed away from the tests. In California, which has been in the forefront of the OBE movement, controversy arose when conservative groups discovered that a reading test given to high school sophomores contained an excerpt from "Roselilly," a short story by Alice Walker in which an unwed mother describes her feelings as she is about to be married.
The state board of education eventually restored that passage and two others that had come under scrutiny, but criticism of the test forced officials to announce recently that they would allow parents to exempt their children from taking it. That was not enough to satisfy at least four conservative school boards in the state, which voted not to give the tests at all. Vista is considering a similar move.
To Stanford's Kirst, the attack on testing represents a far more serious threat than what he calls "marginal issues" such as creationism and sex education. He also sees one of the Vista board's less publicized decisions - to decline a $400,000 federal grant to provide social services in the schools - as highly symbolic of the direction conservative critics are now taking.
"They're into the heart of teaching and learning now," he said, "and what the function of schools are... . To me, they're much more fundamental issues." <02:23 05-12C
Flying Wombat
a few quotations might shed new light on how religion can affect people..
"The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world. She was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire. . . Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"Virgin birth: 'Holy Virgin' was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar, Asherah, or Aphrodite. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it simply meant 'unmarried.' The function of such 'holy virgins' was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances, to sail for the dead; and to become Brides of God. . ."
-- Women's Dictionary of Myth
Flying Wombat
but most germane to the arguments about public (or school) prayer (and rear-entry attempts to get around the clear and proven Constitutional prohibition) is this little gem:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to they Father which is in secret; and thy Father which is in secret shall reward thee openly."
see, I keep saying that Jesus was a good-guy, and pretty smart.. he obviously knew the perils of sanctimony and is cautioning against it.. oh yes, that's Matt. 6:5,6.
uncle herb
and U2 said, "she moves in mysterious ways."
Aquila
Oh God, I come back in a month and every message is new. Therefore I have to skip most of the discussion and see where it left off. I wholeheartedly agree with Jesus about keeping prayer in private. What is your relationship with God FOR if you must use it to impress others?
Aquila
Another one, I agree that questions are being ignored. I can ask someone who fancies themself not only a 'Christian' but an expert scholar, to point to anything at all in any of the Bibles that have ever been written, that isn't by definition hearsay. We all can pose questions and challenges. Do we dare do this, for fear of being called "anti-Christian" or even more heinous names?
I believe in taking a mature, rational approach to studying religion, its origins and history, and its consequences. Dogmatism will lead nowhere. Name-calling and emotionalism are also pointless.
I will probably take another few weeks before calling again, so let others enjoy your replies.
West
To All:
Some folks have deeply held beliefs. And they usually have good reasons for having them. The worst thing, in this day and age when the the inquisitions are over in the free world, and we don't face dictatorship or oligarchy under the name of rule by divine right, the worst that can happen is that some folks, being very well meaning, will threaten some other folks with an eternity of hell fire.
Being that those folks who are being threatened know darn well that there isn't any hell fire, the threat is meaningless and harmless, isn't it?
If so, then maybe it just isn't worth getting excited about.
Whippersnapper
West, until now I must admit I've regarded your rather strident opposition to my commentary with just a little puzzlement. It seemed you were always a little too -- well, *shrill*. Perhaps as though there were something about *me* that bothered you but you weren't quite saying...
Now, I must further admit I am utterly amazed. Your latest lengthy post in this room was not a little enlightening. I've delayed a few days in getting to it for lack of time, but I assure you it's for the better, because I want to address it point by point.
Perhaps I can serve to disabuse you of a few misconceptions. Not, perhaps, on the immediate topic itself (which has been the "moment of silence" matter), but at least with respect to my own motives and intent.
I'll quote you extensively and answer as best I can.
You say: "Whippersnapper, I and others have given you a history of religous abuse in this nation. I and others have given you our own experiences with this. I told you about being faced up by my school mates with the very hostile question, "Why did you kill our Lord?" Others have told you similar stories.
"These you dismissed as being something that happens only in some towns somewhere past your attention or concern."
Actually, I never dismissed these things in any such way. And if they are your real experiences, I don't envy you. What I DID say, as I vaguely recall, is essentially that regardless of any law which might exist, there is NO protection from this sort of thing, and never will be. People will ALWAYS have their prejudices, perhaps the more so for a school environment which implicitly invalidates religion by its virtual exclusion. I have no doubt there is still plenty of this kind of abusive behavior amongst people of all their various religious and ideological persuasions, all over the U.S., in and out of school. By what twisted logic do you attribute it to a tolerant attitude towards the practice of religious custom in school?
"Children have been forced to sing Christian songs, and pray Christian prayers in public schools when those things were anathema to them. Children who belong to religous which forbid the taking of oats have been forced to salute the flag and repeat the Pledge of Alliegance, even though those things were anathema to them. But you dismiss this as ancient history, although these things were changed only by the actions of the Supreme Court, and probably all of them within your own lifetime, even though I suspect that you are much younger than I."
Well, first of all, implicit in this is the false idea that I would promote or favor such compulsory impositions of Christian (or any whatever) customs upon people. I do not, quite simply. And never would. To draw this conclusion from what I HAVE said requires a wholly delusory interpretation, which I am convinced comes from your mind and not from ANY rational appraisal of my purposes. More on that later.
Meanwhile, I think you overstate the case for such inflictions. While in fact those things HAVE happened, except for the Pledge and flag customs, they were not widespread. Widespread or not, I agree such things are better abandoned.
"You simply dismiss the history of abuse as though it never existed..." I DO NOT!!! "...but the truth is that it did. The truth is that the people who put forward the notion of a moment of silence are the very same groups which started out with wanting Christian prayers back in the public schoolrooms, and they have slowly but surely backed up to the moment of silence as one Court decision after another which supported your rights and mine forced them away from an immediate accomplihement of their goal. But the goal hasn't changed. And if they win this, then they will go onto the next step..."
There is a point, somewhere, where such compromise reaches the point of being within not only the letter of the law, but within reason. I happen to think this is such a case. Meanwhile I would not favor, for instance, Christian prayer conducted by the school principal over the PA. There's a point beyond which such things become intrusive, and a point BEFORE which they do NOT.
"As to dissenting opinions, of course there are. Rarely is a Supreme Court decision unanimous. But so what? This isn't a single decision made by a single Court. These are a long string of decisions made by several Courts. "
Okay. Always bearing in mind I don't by any means disagree with every religion-related Supreme Court ruling there ever was: you may as well also permit me to agree with the dissent in a few cases! By way of my commentary in this forum, I don't establish any of the laws of the land. But by the vehemence of your responses, one might imagine I did...
"The wall between Church and State is a good thing for both, Whippersnapper. It protects religion more than any other institution is protected in this country."
Broadly speaking, I agree with this statement. But there are some moderating factors which merit attention.
In a legal system which (we hope) places the liberties of honest men as of paramount importance -- as ours does, or is intended to do -- there is always a "gray" area of conflict between these liberties of an individual and the rights of others who may surround him. You have a right to free expression, yes; but may you disturb others' sleep by loudly exercising that right in the street at midnight? Probably not. But in daylight on a downtown street corner? Usually yes. Even despite the occasional day sleeper? Maybe. Probably...
There's that ancient metaphor: your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose. But what if he puts his nose there on purpose?
We encounter a similar problem when we attempt to extend the SEPARATION of Church and State to what sometimes amounts to the PROHIBITION of religion within the ambit of the State or its funds. I maintain that there IS a point, albeit difficult at times to perceive, where this "separation" idea, in the form of hidebound law, enters this same gray area and begins to impose itself upon religious liberty.
"And you are being destructive, and anti-religious when you keep urging people to lay religious institutions open to harm by government and the private sector."
Oh, come ON. This is utter delusion! What goes on in your mind when you read what I actually DO say? Well, what goes on in your head is your own affair. But this is basically just a lie.
"Is it that you only pose as a supporter of religion, hoping that your audience won't be able to figure out that all the time you are plotting and planning the overthrow of free religion in the United States?"
I briefly considered admitting to this crime in a satirical manner, but decided your sense of humor wouldn't be up to it.
"Are you still, somehow, receiving money from the Communist Party, even though communism suffered such a great defeat in the ex-Soviet Union?"
Actually, no. I get my funding from the World Bank. They want us all to be Godless automatons. (Couldn't resist anymore.)
Whippersnapper
Continued...
"Well, I don't know what devils drive you. If you are the Anti-Christ, or just a dupe of Satan. But I do know that religion, under the doctrine of separation of Chursh and State has thrived in America, while in those states where government takes it over, only one religion survives, and that is the religion of rule by Divine Right, or what is the same thing, Rule by the divine inspiration of Marx through the "science" of dialectical materialism."
I'm beginning to despair of convincing you of my good intentions, West. :)
"You too, under the guise of a "scientific" religion, are trying to tear down religion by debarring it from its special protections, and that might make a person wonder if the two "scientific" religions, yours and Marxism, aren't really tied together in some hidden, even occult, way."
For all your posturing, West, as if you'd save all religion from my devilish meddling; this is a pretty d*mned hostile, ignorant, bigoted assault on MY religion. It is no "guise" but my own closely held beliefs which make me a Scientologist; which fact (this will surprise you) has just almost exactly nothing to do with the opinions I hold on the subject at hand.
Ah, but perhaps you're just trying to undermine your own oh-so-principled position. I should just let you do it.
"Well, just as you have dismissed reality, the law, the Court and everything else that makes reason, in order to support your strange and suspicious agenda, I suppose that you'll dismiss this too, and act as though you are outraged that I would accuse you of being a souless, atheistic Communist.
"But you know the old saying. If the shoe fits..."
For all that I hold a basically moderate position on all this, I really find it amazing that you hold such an extreme view of my commentary, West. In fact, I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your sanity.
* * *
For the record, I have no desire to bring back the bad old days of "compulsory" Christianity, rare though that phenomenon actually was. And I'm a LO-O-ONG ways from advocating a State religion!! I consider there are some good points about developments of recent decades.
What I would like to see is a balance. I respect the rights of Christians AND those of other religious persuasions, and whether you choose to believe it or not THAT is my motivation for the views I hold and the attempts I make to articulate them here.
Pun master
West: of course the threats are meaningless. if they are no more than verbal bluster, then they are merely annoying. but there is a hopefully small, yet vociferous and well-organized minority whose avowed intent >is< to bring about a theocracy.
for the sake of democracy, one can hope that these extremists fail at all levels. but complacency can play into their hands. who was it who said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty?"
I can provide additional quotes that demonstrate the nature of the problem. so long as the extremists take themselves seriously, amass money (and in some cases, weaponry), and through deceit infiltrate into the political system, there is cause for concern.
oh yes.. no more inquisitions? McCarthyism wasn't discredited that many years ago, was it? as long as the same sort of mentality still exists, and safeguards against it still aren't adequate, and the majority is apathetic enough, I think there is a danger.
food for thought: the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S. were Deists, >not< theists. there's a huge difference.
Megamol
funny thing about that, I never considered Scientology to be an actual religion per se, I alway thought it was a set of beliefs, but not a worshipping type religion....correct me if I'm wrong, cause I admit I don't know for sure.
JayDee
didn't you use The Hiss to drive them away on 3rd. Ave, when the recruiters
were on the make for you?
West
Whippersnapper, you seem to have caught on to my irony, and then lost it again. You know, you've accused me of being everything from insane to anti-religion several times now. It's getting to be a habit with you. Sort of like the old McCarthyite accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being a communist.
Well, you know, these ad hominem arguments are used by people who can't speak to the issue. And since I've been carrying on this same conversation since about 1960, that's thirty four years now, I guess that I'm never anymore caught short by rhetorical maneuvers, whether they be as sophisticated as synecdoche or as rough and obvious as the street-fighter's below the belt ad hominem attacks.
Now, I tried p pointing that out to you, but it did no good. So, I tried another tack. I put you on the receiving end of what you tried to do to me, only I did it better and more openly. I used your own words, plus the techniques of ad hominem argument and metaphorical turn arounds, speficically synecdoche, to make you anti-religion and the paid agent or dupe of international communism.
I didn't meann seriously to accuse you of communism, and frankly, since I happen to think that communism is a very idealistic system, the kind believed in by the most good hearted people, but one fated to fail in today's societal arrangements, I would not give a rat's behind if you were a communist. That would be fine with me.
What I did was to try to show you in the most direct terms, the effect it has on r rational conversation when one of the parties insists on calling the other party names. Or becomes angry and rattled. Becausse that is when the conversation ceases to have any value at all. And let me tell you, I don't enjoy being on either the sending or receiving end of a flame war.
What I did was meant to be a lesson, delivered by irony, where a direct confrontation did not work. The lesson is that you ought to listen to what I say, not to your automatic feelings when challenged, and that if you can't support your arguments rationally, it's better to do your homework so you can rather than to attack the other fellow on everything but the subject at hand.
West
Whippersnapper--now you brought up some points in defense of your argument for a moment of silence in schools, and in refutation of my counter arguments.
First it is your claim, as I understand it, that no law sepµ¢Þç?úú
Megamol
yes....that was on 2nd Ave.
West
Whippersnapper, you brought up some points of support of your argument.
First, you claim that no law can be enforced that ameliorates religious abuse in public schools. Well, that's a pretty raw claim. I can't accept that simply because you say it. Not when I actually went to school before those laws went into effect, during the time they were being put into effect, during the time they were being enforced and strengthened by the courts, and afterwards.
And I followed what happened. Jehovah's Wittnesses in fact, not in fancy, were relieved of persecution in public schools, for one example. And I myself ceased to face the organized persecution that I had faced every day.
And in fact, not in fancy, the principles and teachers in schools can no longer legally indulge themselves with an establishment of a religion or all religions as they used to do in almost every school in the nation.
Those are the historical facts. The laws have worked, and they are still working now, as cases continue to arise where various governmental or parental groups test the seriousness of the courts in enforcing your and my constitutional rights to be protected against abuse by both Church and State.
You say that you never have supported abuse. That's right, you haven't so far as I know from what I read from you on the boards. That was irony, in the form of sarcasm on my part, just in order to show you what it feels like to be on the other end of an ad hominem attack. In the hopes that no more of those will occur between us.
But you know, back awhile ago, there were those folks who insisted on an unreasonable and unnecessary support of the concept of state's rights. Now, there is nothing wrong with state's rights. In fact, having these levels of government is necessary to preserve a fair distribution of power so that the people may remain the soveriegns.
But those folks also overlooked some balancing facts. When they supported state's rights they also supported slavery, and later on, institutionalized and legalized oppression of Blacks and other minorities.
Since we do have the 14th amendment, which extends federal civil rights and civil liberties to the citizens of the states, state's rights can no longer override the rights of every citizen of the United States, and therefore, those poeple who supported state's rights as some kind of absolute permission to do anything abusive a state might wish to do, were wrong on the face of it, as well as wrong in the law.
I know that you are well meaning, Whippersnapper. But in fact, you yourself complain loudly that somehow, this wall of protection is actually undermining religion itself. That's your own claim, and you'll just have to own it, and stand by it or understand that you can't say both that a moment of silence is both not for religious purpose and that it is precisely for the purpose of saving religion. I think you have to abandon one of those claims.
I said that the same people who are after prayer in schools, and I mean organized, open and compulsory prayer, are the very same ones who, backed into the constitutional corner, now demand th
that moment of silence. Once that is accepted, they know, it will be easier to take the next step. They will say, look, we already have silent prayer and everyone knows that. The Court has now said that children can pray in public schools. So there can be no reason why they can't do it out loud.
They will have set their precedent, Whippersnapper. And if you think that the camel's nose can't be used that way, I suggest you read a couple of books on the history of the real Prohibition, because that is exactly how it came about.
Now, as to Prohibition, that is another of your newly presented, to me anyways, arguments.
West
But you know, Prohibition did something very active. It made the making, distribution and selling of alcoholic beverages illegal everywhere in the nation. Now please listen to me when I say this: prohibition was an active, positive law that stopped people from being able to drink alcoholic beverages legally. It stopped the manufacture of alcoholic beverages. It stopped the distribution of alcoholic beverages. It stopped the selling of alcoholic beverages. It stopped the buying of alcoholic beverages.
That was its legal effect.
Now, please listen to me when I tell you this: the separation of Church and State does NOT prohibit either religion nor state. It does not stop a single person from believing in his or her religion. It does not stop a single person from praying at any time, so long as it is kept private. It does not stop a single parent from bringing up his or her own child to a particular set of beliefs. It does not prevent a single child from believing whatevert that child wishes to believe or is told to believe by his or her parents or guardians. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever for or against religion.
And, Whippersnapper, just as it bars the teaching of creationism in public schools as established fact, it ALSO bars the government from forcing Churches teaching evolution as established fact in Sunday School.
It PROTECTS religious institutions from being invaded by government. If this is undermining science, if it undermines rational thought, if it undermines the possibility of children learning outside of Church how to use analytical and critical thought, then I'll eat my hat.
In just the same way, keeping school prayer private, eliminating the cheating that went on in every school in the nation before the constitutional law was enforced, does not undermine the Church in any way, shape for form.
You have yet to demonstrate in any way, aside from a bald claim that must be taken at face value, without any cross-examination, that separation of Church and State harms the state or harms religion.
And if you can square your claim that separation is okay, but that at the same time it is destructive of religious freedom, then I wish you'd make that argument. But I don't believe that you can, because I think that history and common sense both deny the accuracy of any such claim.
You wish me to permit you to agree with some dissent from the Court minority. Okay, leave me your permission to cite what the law in fact is, which is the consistent majority opinion over decades of history, and permit me to cite the abuses that went on in every state, in every locality, before the laws were enforced, and permit me to cite that this kind of abuse is now so rare that when it happens it makes the newspapers.
You say that sometimes there are conflicts between individual and collective rights, and that sometimes a compromise is in order.
That is true. But now you must show that there is a compelling state need to compromise on the side of prayer in schools. Why do we need this moment of silence? What will accomplish for us that isn't already in place?
Is it that children will be able to pray in public schools? Well, for that to be true, then children must not be able to pray in public schools now. But we both know that that's false. Children are free to make their own moments of silence right now, in school, and you know that.
Isn't it a fact that silent prayer is by definition indetectable? Isn't it true that no one can hear what is not being said out loud? Isn't it true that no school fills up the time and minds of every child in it for the entire length of the school day?
So, you must explain why it is that a special time must be set aside, perhaps the time that otherwise would be taken up by a spelling test, or the reading of a chapter on American History, to allow children to pray in an organized, if not openly admitted way? Why sneak around the bush on this? WE all know that the moment of silence is to be used to pray.
You have said so often enough yourself, when you have said, repeatedly, that a bar on a moment of silence is a denial of religious liberty, and that separation of Church and State when it comes to a moment of silence is an anti-relgious act.
Nothing in the world can make your view of a moment of silence more clear. Your view is that it is a religious exercise, not a secular one, not a learning exercise or opportunity, but a saving act precisely for religion.
West
Whippersnapper--so, what is this compelling state interest? Why must we have a moment of silence in the classroom. Shouldn't we also have a moment of primal screaming in the classroom? Shouldn't we also have a moment of making burping sounds in the classroom?
Of course not. None of those things are related in any significant way, if at all, to getting an education. None of them bars any child from learning. None of them stops a child from being taught by his or her parents or church. None of them promotes atheism above religion.
But just one of them, the moment of silence, clearly, by your own works, Whippersnapper, promotes religion above non-religion, and promotes Church interference in state government.
Give me the rational, not fantasy, compelling state interest in this moment of silence, and explain it to me without involving the saving of religio, which clearly establishes the intent of religious interference, and explain it to me in a way that won't also justify a moment of primal screaming, or burping, or a moment of refraining from nose picking or arm scratching, or any other absurdity, and then you'll have really started your case.
Of course, then you must also demonstrate that this compelling need won't cause more harm than it fixes, so that we won't have jumped out of the constitutional frying pan into the constitutional fire.
And then you will have made your case for this legally enforced change you support.
Otherwise, why not leave well enough alone, and not open the door to every claiment with an agenda who wishes to establish some moment for some thing or event that must, by law, take place in every school room in the nation?
JayDee
idiots...
genghis khan
A god that can ebe understood, is no god.
Flying Wombat
(that previous article was moved in here because the 'Debate' room doesn't seem to be netting anywhere. oh, well.) meanwhile, here's another item that fits this room's topic:
The "Mind Control" Controversy
What is Coercive Persuasion?
Is there such a thing as _brainwashing?_ Is the way in which cults recruit and indoctrinate their members an example of such mind control?
In his book on mind control and ego destruction, Robert J. Lifton lists eight elements that he found to be intrinsic to the complete involuntary conversion of a person to a new and absolute philosophy, a process he calls _totalism._ They are:
* Milieu Control: The purposeful limitation of all forms of communication with the outside world, sleep deprivation, a change in diet, control over who one can see and talk to.
* Mystical manipulation: Teaching that the control group has a special (_divine_) purpose and that the subject has been chosen to play a special role in fulfilling this purpose.
* Need for purity: Convincing the subject of his former impurity (_before joining the control group_) and the necessity of becoming pure or perfect as defined by the group.
* Confession: Getting the subject to let down barriers and openly discuss innermost fears and anxieties.
* Sacred silence: Convincing the subject that the control group's beliefs are the only logical system of belief and therefore must be accepted and obeyed.
* Loading the language: Creating a new vocabulary, by creating new words with special meanings understood only by members of the group, or by giving new and special meanings to familiar words and phrases.
* Doctrine over persons: Convincing the subject that the group and its doctrine take precedence over any individual in the group or any other teaching from outside it.
* Dispensing of existence: Teaching the subject that all those who disagree with the philosophy of the control group are doomed.
Whippersnapper
West, let's get just a few things straight.
First: I recognized the vicious sarcasm you refer to as "irony" for what it was. You're welcome to delude yourself that it's "turnabout" and therefore fair play. It's in poor taste, in fact, and not recognizable even as an attempt at humor. I'm not in need of object lessons, and it's not your job to engage in my upbringing.
You accuse me of "ad hominem" attacks. What the term *means* is "appealing to one's prejudices rather than to reason, as in attacking one's opponent rather than debating the issue" (Webster's).
You and I have both had a good deal to say about the issue. In many respects, were you only to examine my comments rationally, I agree with you. Our difference lies essentially in HOW best to balance the interests of Church vs. State and HOW best to implement their "separation" -- not WHETHER these principles of political philosophy are of value.
I'm making a considerable effort to appeal to reason. I explain my rationale at least as exhaustively as you do. Regardless of whether you agree with my views, you'd do well to acknowledge that fact.
You've misquoted me. You've attributed intentions and beliefs to me which are utterly false. You've now engaged in jabs you call "irony" which are vastly out of proportion to the offenses you attribute to me, and include even a tasteless reference to my own religion, for the *second* time!
I've just extracted all of both our posts from the point where this "moment of silence" debate originated.
I'm going to prove my point about your misrepresentations. I'm going to do so with verbatim quotes from both our posts. And I'm going to try *again* to clarify my position on the actual issue.
You said: "I told you about being faced up by my school mates with the very hostile question, "Why did you kill our Lord?" Others have told you similar stories.
"These you dismissed as being something that happens only in some towns somewhere past your attention or concern."
You also later said, "You simply dismiss the history of abuse as though it never existed..."
I did no such thing. In fact, you are evidently responding to a post which pre-dates the immediate debate, in which I said: "And where's all the real evidence of Christian mistreatment? Never mind all the anecdotes. I can give you mine and contradict them all: I was never Christian, and lived all over the US while a school-age child. I attended no less than 7 schools in Oklahoma, Missouri, New York State, Florida and Texas. In exactly NONE of these did I ever feel pressured or put-upon to share Christian views or to suffer through their prayers. As I reached teenage, I never made a secret of the fact that I was not only not Christian, but never would be. Frankly, I consider the idea that someone else "dying for my sins" should ever absolve me to be ludicrous. I'll die for them myself, thank you. Yet I was never attacked or besmirched. Meanwhile I don't illogically hate, avoid or otherwise abuse Christians. My childhood friends were Jews, Catholics, Christians, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecosts; even a Buddhist here and a Hindu there." I did not "dismiss" your tales. I offered my own for comparison because I'm firmly convinced you overstate the situation drastically. And I MOST certainly did NOT indicate ANYTHING about the matter being outside my "attention or concern." I've made other comments which acknowledge abuses and directly contradict that ridiculous assertion, which I'll instantly quote if you try to defend this garbage.
There's Example 1 of your misrepresentation of my words.
You say: "I know that you are well meaning, Whippersnapper. But in fact, you yourself complain loudly that somehow, this wall of protection is actually undermining religion itself."
I've said no such thing! Time and time again, I have supported the idea that no particular religion should be officially sanctioned by the school or its officials. Must I repeat myself forever? I'll do it tirelessly so long as you continue to misstate my opinion. I simply take the view that when the exclusion of religion is taken to the point that INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS must compromise their religious views or customs, and are virtually prohibited from any exercise of their religious observances whatever, that the concept of "separation of Church and State" has been taken beyond the accomplishment of its intent and has begun to encroach upon individual liberties.
I will say this once and for all: I FAVOR, AGREE WITH and SUPPORT the "Separation of Church and State." Further, I AGREE WITH and ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED for the articulation of laws which prohibit the direct support of any particular religion by government institutions, schools and the like. And I RECOGNIZE that such laws have brought about some very favorable change.
Don't you GET it, West? I happen to think those purposes can be WELL served, WITHOUT simultaneously denying the individual his/her free expression and a reasonable latitude for NON-INTRUSIVE exercise of religious practice.
You say: "Now, as to Prohibition, that is another of your newly presented, to me anyways, arguments."
I never mentioned Prohibition. *You* did. And I made no response because it appeared totally irrelevant. You're welcome to point out all day long that I made a poor comparison, but you make a complete fool of yourself. The comparison was utterly YOURS. And your treatment of this illusory issue is pedantic and insinuating!
Now, here's an underhanded one: "You have yet to demonstrate in any way, aside from a bald claim that must be taken at face value, without any cross-examination, that separation of Church and State harms the state or harms religion."
Oh, wait a MINUTE here. Why would I wish to demonstrate a "bald claim" I never made? Dredge up a quotation, IN CONTEXT please, and "demonstrate" to me where I made any such absurd assertion. Or else drop this pitiful, disgusting excuse for debate. Your tactics are positively inexcusable. Or else you're just deluded, in which case I pity you. I'm beginning to get pretty d*mned impatient with you, West.
Whippersnapper
Continued...
"And if you can square your claim that separation is okay, but that at the same time it is destructive of religious freedom, then I wish you'd make that argument."
I DON'T make that claim. It isn't "separation" *per se* that intrudes upon religious freedom. It is the *extension* of that very valid idea to a point that prohibits religious practice to a degree that is - in my opinion - unnecessary in order to accomplish its purposes AND sufficiently contrary to the principle of religious freedom that it should be moderated. It's all a matter of DEGREE. I strongly prefer a less extreme approach than is often evident.
Say a group of students, on their own initiative, wish to sit together at lunch and practice the custom of "saying Grace." Is it REALLY a compromise with the "separation of Church and State" if they're permitted to do so? Are they promoting "theocracy"? Are they abusing someone? Is the school's non-interference somehow tantamount to a sanction of their particular religion?
Someplace there is a point where you LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE because you DON'T NEED TO BOTHER THEM. Your very own oft-stated principle of "compelling need" applies here, as I see it. Is there a compelling need to interfere in ALL such cases? Remember, we already have a firmly established standard of religious liberty. The precedent is set. We have here a clash of conflicting interests and laws, with validity to both sides.
I could say all this a million different ways. And so long as you continue to directly (and I think deliberately) misrepresent what I'm saying, I'll come back and say it again. And point out your false renderings while I'm at it.
You say: "You have said so often enough yourself, when you have said, repeatedly, that a bar on a moment of silence is a denial of religious liberty, and that separation of Church and State when it comes to a moment of silence is an anti-relgious act."
Once again -- *groan* -- this is your rearranged (and vastly more extreme!) version of what I really DID say. Want a quote? Here it is: "The fact that our Constitution precludes regulation of religion is systematically twisted into de facto opposition to religion in many respects. A non-denominational approach to specifically-legalized religious observance is a graceful solution. Why oppose it? This sort of thing could help reconcile the issue considerably."
This was my FIRST post on the topic. I have been saying neither more nor less, all along, than that I would like to see a point of compromise between the two interests which is to the advantage of all. The "moment of silence" rule - being compulsory - is obviously imperfect, though not onerously so. It certainly may not be the best form such compromise should take. I said I considered you spoke from an anti-religious bias, and cited your own very pointed (and wholly unnecessary) invalidations of Christianity to support my point. But denial of the "moment" an anti-religious act? This is your own special little piece of fiction, West.
I hope you're profoundly embarrassed to see your weird mutations of fact brought to light. You SHOULD be. Perhaps it's pretense, but I perceive that you might like to be known for truthfulness and accuracy.
* * *
If you're capable of it, West, stand back from this thing. There is an issue, which is essentially the conflict of two very valid principles: That of the separation of Church and State, and that of freedom of religion (and of expression). At certain points in government, law and society these two interests do (and always will) conflict, though they are not diametrically opposed. Both are obviously important elements of a reasonably free society.
You and I would "draw the line" differently. So what? We both have rights to our views.
But what I think you DON'T have a right to do is to represent WHAT I BELIEVE or WHAT I SAY in a false or insulting manner. At very least, this is grossly bad form in debate, because you don't even wind up arguing with what I've really said!! And at worst, it amounts to deliberate efforts at insult with no rational reason whatever.
JayDee
funny thing about that, gk
religion is an incomplete science
science is an incomplete religion
and the two will merge, someday
Jon Nailor
Thank JayDee. I was beginning the worry if anyone heard me. I am about to xclude this room because only West and Whippersnapper are the only ones talking. And they are talking to each other and noone else.
JayDee
what is a synecdoche?
West
Whippersnapper, in your latest broadside, you accuse me of being possibly deluded or being underhanded. And you take an interesting position. You say that you never said that religion is being undermined, just personal liberty. But the personal liberty in question is precisely the practice of religion!
Really, I can't help but see the equation here between liberty and religion.
As to my ironic post, it came about because I was tired of being insulted, being told that I was ignorant, and tired of hearing you reject out of hand both history *and* anecdotal information when it disagreed with your own notions.
So, please don't tell me, in an ad hominem attack where I am pictured as being either delusionary or underhanded, that you never engage in ad hominem attacks.
But let me make you an offer. Since I am no enemy of yours, and since you are no enemy of mine; let's just say that we got off on the wrong foot. Well, heck, it doesn't matter, let's say it really is all my fault and that you are spotless in this. And let's just start with a clean slate.
You have merely been defending yourself against my underhanded and nasty attacks, and I have merely misunderstood your rational and objective posts for ad hominem arguments full of synecdoches.
Could we do that? Because, really, I don't want to go back through this message base so I can pull this and that item out, necessarily out of context, and go another round. I just don't enjoy this kind of thing at all, and it appears that you don't either.
Kagro X
That must be why he threw the extra "e" in there, so that he couldn't be understood.
Ruadh
Something both fascinating (from a historical point of view) and frightening is the recent trend of witch-burnings in South Africa. The people being burned are NOT witches, by and large, but are rather somewhat wealthier or more successful than their neighbors -- objects of envy. One example given on a radio report today was a wealthy widow, who said that her neighbors were jealous that she had managed to increase the size and prosperity of her herds of livestock, despite not having a husband.
This is a similar pattern to the Witchcraze in Europe, in which the majority of people executed were women. These women were often "uppity" or otherwise considered unacceptable by their (male) neighbors.
I am glad that we live in a nation of religious tolerance, but it's not inconceivable that this kind of thing could happen here, too. We should value our freedom.
I've been following the story of the "Church of Iron Oak" in Florida, in which a pagan group was holding about 6 worship meetings a year in the homes of their members. The immediate neighbors had no complaints; the group was not noisy and did not create a parking problem. More distant neighbors, however, complained on religious grounds. The city is trying to fine Iron Oak for code violations, saying they can't have meetings in their home because of code violations (even though a code inspector couldn't find anything wrong, I think). Fourteen local Christian pastors are siding with Iron Oak, however, because they also hold _weekly_ prayer meetings in members' homes, which are technically illegal.
I hope this brings more understanding between the Christian groups and the pagan ones, at least on the front of religious freedom.
Helix Quark
it's a figure of speech where a part is used to represent the whole.
like saying "all HANDS on deck" to mean "all MEN on deck"
using HANDS (part) to mean MEN (whole) is a synecdoche
pronounced sin ehk duh key
Diakonos
JayDee - It's a single word which is used to denote an entire collection of items or people. (I guess it could be a short phrase used the same way.)
And, as for you two who have been duking it out for the last few weeks, I have rather enjoyed your exchange of ideas. It did, at times, get rather personal, and the posts were lengthy and somewhat redundant, but the content overall was great. I've just been a fly on the wall....
uncle herb
Religious freedom begins to tread on thin ice as soon as it impinges upon the rights of others. For example, if a cult sucks someone in at a weak spot in their lives, and ends up totally controlling them -- theoretically, they acted on their free will, but anyone with common sense knows better. Groups like that must be rooted out, and their leaders burned at the stake.
Flying Wombat
hmm. in all of the above, I notice one thing in particular that needs comment. the instance of students, on their own initiative, getting together at lunch and "saying grace" is >NOT< to be equated with legal objections against a school-administration-mandated "moment of silence" in the classroom -- despite any insinuations to the contrary that might be displayed in this room.
the former example is >not< being objected to by anyone in here, as far as I can see... at least not on Constitutional grounds! as I have posted, though, if not done in "secret," it >does< rather strongly seem to fly in the face of Matthew, chapter 6, verses 5 & 6.
the latter shouldn't have been an arguable point anyhow. I find that West's analyses of the issue, and of the intent behind the "moment of silence" thing, to be credible, rational, and to match what is being said by scholars (constitutional and ethical) whom I find to be right on the mark. so, I see no refutation of the argument that the "moment of silence" is inherently unconstitutional and should be rejected.
I can, if need be, refer interested people to additional discussion on the issue.. there are some excellent books that cover the subject (among other things).
Flying Wombat
here are a couple of rather enlightening volumes which I highly recommend. both are available in public libraries.
AUTHOR: Allen, Steve, 1921-
TITLE: Steve Allen on the Bible, religion, & morality / forward by
Martin Gardner.
PUBLISHER: Buffalo, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, c1990.
DESCRIPT: xxxv, 428 p. ; 24 cm.
SUBJECTS: Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
ISBN: 0879756381 :
LCCN: 90039954
AUTHOR: Allen, Steve, 1921-
TITLE: More Steve Allen on the Bible, religion, & morality.
PUBLISHER: Buffalo, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1993.
DESCRIPT: xxi, 452 p. ; 24 cm.
NOTES: Companion vol. to: Steve Allen on the Bible, religion & morality.
SUBJECTS: Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
LCCN: 92041364
ISBN: 0879757361 :
Whippersnapper
West, I certainly agree we should conduct a more peaceful debate.
For my part, I'm sure I could stand to be less acidic at times. Frankly, though, there's little or nothing I've said which I would amend - except perhaps to de-claw it a bit.
The problem I perceive hasn't much to do with the topic at hand. It is even illustrated in your latest post, conciliatory as it is.
You see, West, you *misquote* me. I think this fact needs your honest attention.
I'm willing to believe you do it for reasons other than malice or dementia.
It's entirely possible that you read what I write in a less than thorough and attentive manner. But if I ALSO surmise that you have dealt with others less reasonable than myself on these same issues in the past - and so have become a bit touchy about it, to put it delicately - then it makes still more sense to me.
For example, you've just said: "... And you take an interesting position. You say that you never said that religion is being undermined, just personal liberty." The fact is, that is NOT an accurate representation of what I had to say. It just plain ain't so. Go back and LOOK if you like.
You also say: "So, please don't tell me, in an ad hominem attack where I am pictured as being either delusionary or underhanded, that you never engage in ad hominem attacks." But in actual fact, West, I never said that I "never engage in ad hominem attacks." I took pains to define the term precisely because I wanted to illustrate that you were engaging in essentially that, yourself. I never actually denied your accusation, but rather attempted to zero in on exactly what I DID have a disagreement about. Which is what I am once again trying to do right now.
I am truly entirely willing - even anxious - to confine my comments to the topic itself. But I will not -- EVER -- cease to object to misrepresentations of my words or intent. Such things set off some major alarms with me. When deliberate, they assuredly ARE a product of ill intent, or at BEST utter carelessness of fact.
You may not WANT to "go back through this message base," but I strongly suggest you DO if that's what's required to be accurate in your assessment of my meaning. You can't respond rationally without a realistic duplicate of my literal and conceptual intent in mind.
I have no illusions about this. And what's more I know that I write *well.* I use the language with skill and precision, and I do not intentionally write in a manner that will be misinterpreted. I see many indications that others usually *do* receive my true meaning.
It is true that a single sentence, even a paragraph, taken out of context or viewed without a full understanding of its surrounding phraseology might sometimes lead to the misinterpretations you display. I sometimes require several paragraphs to fully convey an idea.
I often attempt to re-state the same idea from several angles of approach in an effort to avoid misunderstanding. But maybe this sometimes contributes to the confusion instead.
Yet the nagging notion continues to haunt me that you're in some way responding to a fixed and inaccurate *opinion* or *apprehension* of my views rather than to what they really ARE. Always acknowledging you aren't obligated or expected necessarily to *agree* with me.
My suggestions? First, relax - just as you're rightly recommending we both should do. Second, read a little more carefully. Third, ask for clarification: "Do you mean to say ______?" rather than "You're saying ______!"
Fact is, I'm a truly, really SMART guy. If something doesn't make sense, there's a better than even chance it isn't what I meant.
Whippersnapper
JayDee, "synecdoche" is defined in my Webster's as: "a figure of speech in which a part is used for a whole, an individual for a class, a material for a thing, or the reverse of any of these. (Example: bread for food, the army for a soldier, or copper for a penny.)
My guess is, West is referring to his belief that I refer to religious liberty as personal liberty, of which religious liberty is just a part, in an effort to legitimize an argument in which the more specific term might not bear the same weight or have the same meaning.
Not only is that not what I *did*, I'm also not sure that's exactly what West means. He seem to be referring to other things as well, which I can't identify offhand.
From there you're on your own... ;)
West
Jon, I hear you. Don't exclude the room. My conversation, on this particular topic, anyway, is about over, since I know I've said everything I can say.
West
JayDee, a synecdoche is a type of metaphore, very popular in public rhetoric. A synecdoche does one of two things. It either takes a part of what is being talked about and speaks as if that part were the whole, or it takes the whole and talks about it as though it were equivalent to each part.
The phrase, "I won't stick my neck out," is a synecdoche because it pictures a part of the person when the phrase really means risk to the entire person.
In anti-abortion literature you'll find a picture supposedly of the feet of a human fetus at an early stage, being held bewteen the fingers and thumb of a man's hand. The feet, in the picture, look to be exactly like a born child's feet.
However, the picture very carefully does not show the rest of the fetus. It does not because if it did, then the viewer would see that the whole fetus does not look much like a born child at all.
In the latter case, the use of the metaphore of the feet to represent the fetus as a child is not for the purpose of having an entertaining figure of speech as in the first example, it is being used to mislead the viewer of the graphic synecdoche.
JayDee
thanks for the definition, gang
interesting...
Prick
the pope's book is a huge success and they're coming out with it on audiocassette. it's the audiofuck's DREAM, man. it will be MINE
religion> _