Meandering Political discussion thread-you've been warned.

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 15th 2003, 1:55 pm

Maybe we're getting into semantics here but I'm not sure peer pressure can be equated to government force. I believe that its around 95% of the world believes in God in some form or another.

What I'm getting at is that the issue doesn't seem to be so much an attack on religious freedom as it is an attack on christianity. Now I'm gonna go and wax on some deep philosophy here and paraphrase Chris Rock in Dogma where he stated that some pretty f*&ked up things had been done in the name of christianity, and I whole heartedly agree. But this is not justification for the villification that is taking place within the socialist left of this country, because we all know that these acts were not justified by the religion but instead by the perversion of the religion by man himself.

The Socialist Left play on the fact that they believe in no deity so their belief system is not a religion, but in fact it is. And thats fine if they admit it. The fact is that they don't and are trying to create rules for christians that they don't have to obey because their's is not a religion. They don't want to play on a level playing field. This whole thing is straight from the Marxist/Stalinist play book, where their can be no higher power than the government, and as such those higher powers must be broken down and controlled so that they do not repersent a threat to the government.

Which brings us full circle back to the belief that the government should always fear its citizens from which its power is granted to them.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 15th 2003, 2:24 pm

I'd recommend that if you want to reply to anything else in this thread that you go ahead and create a new thread on that topic here in the Political Discussion. This thread was certainly "Meandering" and I did my best to split out the major topics that were active.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Apr 15th 2003, 4:38 pm

mglenn wrote:Maybe we're getting into semantics here but I'm not sure peer pressure can be equated to government force. I believe that its around 95% of the world believes in God in some form or another.

What I'm getting at is that the issue doesn't seem to be so much an attack on religious freedom as it is an attack on christianity. Now I'm gonna go and wax on some deep philosophy here and paraphrase Chris Rock in Dogma where he stated that some pretty f*&ked up things had been done in the name of christianity, and I whole heartedly agree. But this is not justification for the villification that is taking place within the socialist left of this country, because we all know that these acts were not justified by the religion but instead by the perversion of the religion by man himself.

The Socialist Left play on the fact that they believe in no deity so their belief system is not a religion, but in fact it is. And thats fine if they admit it. The fact is that they don't and are trying to create rules for christians that they don't have to obey because their's is not a religion. They don't want to play on a level playing field. This whole thing is straight from the Marxist/Stalinist play book, where their can be no higher power than the government, and as such those higher powers must be broken down and controlled so that they do not repersent a threat to the government.

Which brings us full circle back to the belief that the government should always fear its citizens from which its power is granted to them.
Mglenn,

Every political party, religious group and organization has its "nutballs". There are indeed people on the Socialist Left, such as it is in this country, who share the opinion you have criticized. Trust me they are in an extremely microscopic minority of the the larger political left wing of this country. They tend to annoy liberals as much as they annoy moderates or conservatives.

Personally I don't believe in attacking Christianity or any other religions right to be praticed and observed in their respective places of worship. I just don't want any particular version of religion to be forced on myself or others at tax payer expense or at government direction.

Maybe it is semantics?

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 15th 2003, 8:31 pm

But where is the force? We don't force children to say the Pledge. Secondly the american school system is not a government operation. no one is arrested or jailed for not saying the pledge. Instead what I am seeing is an attempt by the left restrict any public display of christianity.

This is exactly what the first amendment says can not be done. As I have stated the "under God" clause in the Pledge does not refer to any specific deity. Just because one person out there doesn't understand that, doesn't mean that the government is forcing a religion on its citizens.

This is the same as people who got upset because a teacher used the word niggardly in her lessons. Somehow ignorance and being offended is a reason to remove the rights of others now a days.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Apr 16th 2003, 2:23 am

mglenn wrote:But where is the force? We don't force children to say the Pledge. Secondly the american school system is not a government operation. no one is arrested or jailed for not saying the pledge. Instead what I am seeing is an attempt by the left restrict any public display of christianity.
Religion is something I feel strongly about. I am against organized religion, I will put that out on the table, and will go further into that at another time, but I have to address what is being said.

There is a definite issue of forcing with the Pledge. The student body is forced to listen to the Pledge everyday at school, like it/agree with it or not. You may not be forced to participate in it, but you are still forced to be there while it is going on, and in most cases forced to stand "and atleast play along".

I have no real issues with the Pledge being recited in schools except for the under God part (and that annoying little brainwashing aspect). We can try and skirt around it as much as we like, but come one, we know to whome it refers. At the very least if you will not accept that fact that it is there in reference to the Christian God, you can not deny that it is refering completely to a monotheistic school of thought. And if this country is truly about religious freedom than that right there is grounds, IMO, for it's removal. Besides the fact that it was only placed there as some half-assed attempt to bring down communism.

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Apr 16th 2003, 2:54 am

mglenn wrote:Maybe we're getting into semantics here but I'm not sure peer pressure can be equated to government force. I believe that its around 95% of the world believes in God in some form or another.
I do not know if this statististic is true or not, but i will assume it is, so I will not comment on that, but by saying "believes in God in some form or another" still implies the Judaic-Christian god. The word "God", specifically with a capital 'G' should not be used in place of deity or a higher/spiritual being. We can argue semantics about it, but when one is referring to "God" it is commonly assumed that it is in reference to the Christian deity.
mglenn wrote:What I'm getting at is that the issue doesn't seem to be so much an attack on religious freedom as it is an attack on christianity.
How would you feel as a non-christian who has to constantly listen to the president referring to specific Christian ideals and memes? It is not an attack on Christianity specifically, but an attack on the way that Church is now seeping into our State more and more each day. Religion is referenced in almost everything our government handles: money, the pledge, the court system, etc.

I would have as much a problem with it if it was Hindu, Satanism, Santerian, Discordian (as fun as that would be ;) ), SubGen, Jewish, you name it.
mglenn wrote:The Socialist Left play on the fact that they believe in no deity so their belief system is not a religion, but in fact it is. And thats fine if they admit it. The fact is that they don't and are trying to create rules for christians that they don't have to obey because their's is not a religion. They don't want to play on a level playing field. This whole thing is straight from the Marxist/Stalinist play book, where their can be no higher power than the government, and as such those higher powers must be broken down and controlled so that they do not repersent a threat to the government.
I have to disagree here. A belief system without a deity is not a religion. The most accepted definitions of "religion" imply that their is focus on at the very least a spiritual leader, and at most a set of deities or a deity.

Their belief system may be dogmatic, but dogma does not definitely define it as a religion. Though I must state, most religions rely on a dogmatic system of thought.

What exactly is the problem of having no higher power than the government (in terms of spiritual higher power, if that is in fact what you are referring to)? Whose higher power are we going to allow to be higher than the government? America would be a lot different if Yog-Sothoth, Pan, or Shiva was accepted as higher than the Christian government we have in place, will that ever happen of course not, and I hope not. There should be NO deity placed above our government. Just because at this moment in time we are not convinced YHVH is telling us to kill all infidels, doesn't make it all ok.

Hey, lets just put the 15 *crash* 10...10 commandments on the walls of every homeroom in every school and get it over with already. I want no complaints when I put up a copy of Hymn to Pan right next to it, the Law of Fives next to that, and key selections of the Satanic Bible next to that and so on, and so on.... see if that goes over well....

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 12:05 pm

fnordboy wrote:...when one is referring to "God" it is commonly assumed that it is in reference to the Christian deity.
Ignorance no excuse!
Merriam-Webster wrote:
God:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
fnordboy wrote:...but an attack on the way that Church is now seeping into our State more and more each day. Religion is referenced in almost everything our government handles: money, the pledge, the court system, etc.
Its not "seeping" in! Its always been there.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
Once again every religion is allowed and the government is not allowed to stated that any one religion is the state religion. But nowhere does it say that the government is not allowed to exersice religious practices. There is no Seperation of Church and State! I does not exist!
fnordboy wrote:A belief system without a deity is not a religion
Merriam-Webster wrote: Religion:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
fnordboy wrote:What exactly is the problem of having no higher power than the government (in terms of spiritual higher power, if that is in fact what you are referring to)?
Because if there is no higher power then your rights and mine desend from the government and as such can be taken away by them. The framers made it very clear that there are certain rights that humans have as a result of being human and that one human does not have the right to take those rights away. And everything the government does should be viewed through those "glasses".

Now my knowledge of eastern religions is not what it should be so I'm arguing from a weak position here. But still I have never heard the Dalai Lama promote the killing of innocents, or the writtings of Budda say that his followers should cleanse the world.

There are certain basic premises we can all agree on. Sure you may think that abortion is ok and I may not. And I believe that it should be left to the individual to decide on such actions. Not the Government!

The issues you raise are not that of religion out of control but instead of the perversion of religion for ones own gain.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Apr 16th 2003, 12:53 pm

mglenn wrote:But where is the force? We don't force children to say the Pledge. Secondly the american school system is not a government operation. no one is arrested or jailed for not saying the pledge. Instead what I am seeing is an attempt by the left restrict any public display of christianity.

This is exactly what the first amendment says can not be done. As I have stated the "under God" clause in the Pledge does not refer to any specific deity. Just because one person out there doesn't understand that, doesn't mean that the government is forcing a religion on its citizens.

This is the same as people who got upset because a teacher used the word niggardly in her lessons. Somehow ignorance and being offended is a reason to remove the rights of others now a days.
Mglenn,

Try something just for a moment. Try not to think of this debate in terms of an assault on Christianity or some wild calculated attempt by weird Lefties to take your bible away. Try not to think of this as PC run amok.

Rather try to think of this as a sensitivity issue. You don't have to agree with Hindus or Jews or Catholics or Muslims or Baptists to respect their space to be who they are. In respecting their space you are respecting your own space. Just try the impossible difficult task of seeing things from another persons point of view.

You are 14, by defination a teenager and possible insecure, you are a member of a religion that worships more than one God. As a teenager you would probably like to fit in with your classmates and be respected and liked. How do you feel when all of your fellowclassmates stand up and recite a pledge to a single God you don't worship. Do you feel out of place? Do you feel awkward? Do you feel ashamed of who you are?

What about something more blatant: school prayer? Your fellow students are participating in prayer in class during school hours. Now what do you do? Do you just sort of mumble along just to fit in? Do you leave the room and therefore have to explain why you don't believe in their God? What do you say to your parents if they found out?

If you can understand the awkwardness and pressure people of "other" faiths may feel maybe you might understand (but not necessarily agree with) the argument for seperation of church and state.

Did the founders intend the seperation of church and state? Maybe not but Jefferson and Madison might not have met a Hindu, a Sikh or Buddhist either. Some things change. The constitution originally sanctioned slavery afterall. But just because it was in the constitution does that mean that today we as modern citizens need to endorse it.

Some things to chew on, thanks for your patience and understanding.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 2:11 pm

Lance, first off I'm really enjoying these discussion so feel free to go for the juggler in your arguments. Keeps me on my toes. I don't like to believe in something with out an understanding of it. These discussions put my views to the test and force me to make sure I understand all the implications of them.

Now on to the good stuff:
lance wrote:Try something just for a moment. Try not to think of this debate in terms of an assault on Christianity or some wild calculated attempt by weird Lefties to take your bible away. Try not to think of this as PC run amok.

Rather try to think of this as a sensitivity issue. You don't have to agree with Hindus or Jews or Catholics or Muslims or Baptists to respect their space to be who they are. In respecting their space you are respecting your own space. Just try the impossible difficult task of seeing things from another persons point of view.
The facts do not support that though. The attack is on christianity! When the gay and lesbians at Pitt had their cu*t Fest and people were offended and demanded that the School stop supporting such things, the left labled is as a restriction of their freedom of speach. But yet when a group promoting abstanence tried to stage a rally the school refused them say that it was religious in nature.

You can't have it both ways. Am I offended by what I've heard about cu*t Fest? Yes! Do I think they should be allowed to have their festival? Yes! Do I think the school should be supporting it? No! Should the abstanence group be allowed? Yes! Should the school support them? No!

The schools sole responsiblity is to teach them that 2+2=4! Not to support social agendas!

The idea comes back to this belief that the seperation of church and state exist. The left wants to restrict religious speech, but yet want their speech free and clear. All I'm saying is all or nothing.
lance wrote:You are 14, by defination a teenager and possible insecure, you are a member of a religion that worships more than one God. As a teenager you would probably like to fit in with your classmates and be respected and liked. How do you feel when all of your fellowclassmates stand up and recite a pledge to a single God you don't worship. Do you feel out of place? Do you feel awkward? Do you feel ashamed of who you are?
Ok your 14 and you feel ashamed that your classmates recite a pledge that states that the nation is under God, which means that the nation is not the highest authority. Notice that you said they pledge to God. This is not correct and is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning.

But back to the point that you feel awkward and out of place. Lets look at why that may be. First you could be ashamed that you don't worship the same God or any God for that matter. Well why don't you worship the same God or any God? Maybe you should ask someone to help you figure that out! If you understood the reasons and could articulate them to others what do you have to be ashamed of? Its called learning and its what growing up is all about.
lance wrote:What about something more blatant: school prayer? Your fellow students are participating in prayer in class during school hours. Now what do you do? Do you just sort of mumble along just to fit in? Do you leave the room and therefore have to explain why you don't believe in their God? What do you say to your parents if they found out?
So lets look at it in a slightly different context. Say you sitting in a dinner and I'm in the booth across from you. You and I get our food at the same time and I bow my head and say grace. Does this offend you? So what if it does? What effect does it have on the rest of your day or life?

You keep making the argument that some ones feelings will be hurt. Do you believe that doing away with all this that peoples feelings will no longer be hurt?
If you can understand the awkwardness and pressure people of "other" faiths may feel maybe you might understand
I was made fun of and ashamed of for a whole lot of things in high school. The summer before 9th grade I received 3rd degree burns over 21% of my body. I had to where special graments, to cover the burns so that the would not scar, for well over a year. Now if you want to talk about humiliation try going through high school looking like a cripple. Religious beliefs don't have to be brought up. I didn't have a choice on whether or not my differences were known. How did I do it? Well first I could explain why I had to wear them. Second I demanded respect. If someone started to make fun and continued after a discription of what I went through I got in their face and didn't back down. I only ever got into two fights in high school and both were with guys that were total idiots.
lance wrote:The constitution originally sanctioned slavery afterall.
We could spin this off into another whole discussion. But it is blatantly apparent to everyone of us that the colored guy next to us is just as much human as anyone else and deserves the same treatment. Its not even in the same class here. No one is being forced to do anything here against their will.
lance wrote:But just because it was in the constitution does that mean that today we as modern citizens need to endorse it.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...

-Declaration of Independence
The facts are childhood ends! You grow up and grow a thick skin against offences to your beliefs. The key is understanding your beliefs not restricting other people's so you don't have to think about yours. Besides the fact that your situations all require that the offended misunderstand the intended meaning, the change you request is still "light and transient", As it will not end end the humiliation we all experience during our childhood.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Apr 16th 2003, 3:34 pm

mglenn wrote:Ignorance no excuse!
You can not deny who was in mind when the under God part was added to the Pledge, or In God We Trust was thrown on the dollar. We can argue all day about the definition of God with a big "G" and who it is referencing, because on paper and from the outside it is easy to gloss over it and form it into a PC stance.
mglenn wrote:
fnordboy wrote:...but an attack on the way that Church is now seeping into our State more and more each day. ....
Its not "seeping" in! Its always been there.
Keywords bolded. I am perfectly aware it has always infected our society, and most societies.
Once again every religion is allowed and the government is not allowed to stated that any one religion is the state religion. But nowhere does it say that the government is not allowed to exersice religious practices. There is no Seperation of Church and State! I does not exist!
Of course the government is not allow to state their religion of choice, as long as they just skirt around the word "God".

And clearly there is no seperation between church and state. That is the problem.
Because if there is no higher power then your rights and mine desend from the government and as such can be taken away by them. The framers made it very clear that there are certain rights that humans have as a result of being human and that one human does not have the right to take those rights away. And everything the government does should be viewed through those "glasses".
Only problem with that is who's deity of choice should be used for that model. If we are to live in a culturally diverse world changes will have to be made.

I am not going to argue semantics here, you will obviously just pull out definitions that suit your idea, and not take into account environmental/Social/Cultural influences on linguistics that may or may not be carried into a dictionary. Websters is not the end all be all.

Slight change of topic:

I have no real problems with prayer in schools, as long as it is done in a seperate club, and not brought into the general classroom, what still stands is that if there will be a prayer club, than there sure as hell better be no complaints when another kid starts up a satanic club or any other non christian oriented religious club. We all know that a large number of christians in that town will be having a heart attack and trying to get every person on the school board fired that tries to be fair and allow the satanic club. They throw kids out of school for wearing a pentacle/pentagram these days, but it is perfectly ok to wear a necklace of a dead guy hanging on a cross , it is ludicrous.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Apr 16th 2003, 4:53 pm

mglenn wrote:Lance, first off I'm really enjoying these discussion so feel free to go for the juggler in your arguments. Keeps me on my toes. I don't like to believe in something with out an understanding of it. These discussions put my views to the test and force me to make sure I understand all the implications of them.

Now on to the good stuff:
lance wrote:Try something just for a moment. Try not to think of this debate in terms of an assault on Christianity or some wild calculated attempt by weird Lefties to take your bible away. Try not to think of this as PC run amok.

Rather try to think of this as a sensitivity issue. You don't have to agree with Hindus or Jews or Catholics or Muslims or Baptists to respect their space to be who they are. In respecting their space you are respecting your own space. Just try the impossible difficult task of seeing things from another persons point of view.
The facts do not support that though. The attack is on christianity! When the gay and lesbians at Pitt had their cu*t Fest and people were offended and demanded that the School stop supporting such things, the left labled is as a restriction of their freedom of speach. But yet when a group promoting abstanence tried to stage a rally the school refused them say that it was religious in nature.

You can't have it both ways. Am I offended by what I've heard about cu*t Fest? Yes! Do I think they should be allowed to have their festival? Yes! Do I think the school should be supporting it? No! Should the abstanence group be allowed? Yes! Should the school support them? No!

The schools sole responsiblity is to teach them that 2+2=4! Not to support social agendas!

The idea comes back to this belief that the seperation of church and state exist. The left wants to restrict religious speech, but yet want their speech free and clear. All I'm saying is all or nothing.
lance wrote:You are 14, by defination a teenager and possible insecure, you are a member of a religion that worships more than one God. As a teenager you would probably like to fit in with your classmates and be respected and liked. How do you feel when all of your fellowclassmates stand up and recite a pledge to a single God you don't worship. Do you feel out of place? Do you feel awkward? Do you feel ashamed of who you are?
Ok your 14 and you feel ashamed that your classmates recite a pledge that states that the nation is under God, which means that the nation is not the highest authority. Notice that you said they pledge to God. This is not correct and is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning.

But back to the point that you feel awkward and out of place. Lets look at why that may be. First you could be ashamed that you don't worship the same God or any God for that matter. Well why don't you worship the same God or any God? Maybe you should ask someone to help you figure that out! If you understood the reasons and could articulate them to others what do you have to be ashamed of? Its called learning and its what growing up is all about.
lance wrote:What about something more blatant: school prayer? Your fellow students are participating in prayer in class during school hours. Now what do you do? Do you just sort of mumble along just to fit in? Do you leave the room and therefore have to explain why you don't believe in their God? What do you say to your parents if they found out?
So lets look at it in a slightly different context. Say you sitting in a dinner and I'm in the booth across from you. You and I get our food at the same time and I bow my head and say grace. Does this offend you? So what if it does? What effect does it have on the rest of your day or life?

You keep making the argument that some ones feelings will be hurt. Do you believe that doing away with all this that peoples feelings will no longer be hurt?
If you can understand the awkwardness and pressure people of "other" faiths may feel maybe you might understand
I was made fun of and ashamed of for a whole lot of things in high school. The summer before 9th grade I received 3rd degree burns over 21% of my body. I had to where special graments, to cover the burns so that the would not scar, for well over a year. Now if you want to talk about humiliation try going through high school looking like a cripple. Religious beliefs don't have to be brought up. I didn't have a choice on whether or not my differences were known. How did I do it? Well first I could explain why I had to wear them. Second I demanded respect. If someone started to make fun and continued after a discription of what I went through I got in their face and didn't back down. I only ever got into two fights in high school and both were with guys that were total idiots.
lance wrote:The constitution originally sanctioned slavery afterall.
We could spin this off into another whole discussion. But it is blatantly apparent to everyone of us that the colored guy next to us is just as much human as anyone else and deserves the same treatment. Its not even in the same class here. No one is being forced to do anything here against their will.
lance wrote:But just because it was in the constitution does that mean that today we as modern citizens need to endorse it.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...

-Declaration of Independence
The facts are childhood ends! You grow up and grow a thick skin against offences to your beliefs. The key is understanding your beliefs not restricting other people's so you don't have to think about yours. Besides the fact that your situations all require that the offended misunderstand the intended meaning, the change you request is still "light and transient", As it will not end end the humiliation we all experience during our childhood.
I am preparing a nice response but it will have to wait until later when I can get back to you.

Thanks again for your perspective.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 5:17 pm

OK lets set some ground rules here to proceed:

1: No one is forcing you to say the pledge. If you do not say it you are still an american citizen.

2: No one is forcing you to say a prayer during a moment of silence.
fnordboy wrote:You can not deny who was in mind when the under God part was added to the Pledge, or In God We Trust was thrown on the dollar. We can argue all day about the definition of God with a big "G" and who it is referencing, because on paper and from the outside it is easy to gloss over it and form it into a PC stance.
The framers do not aggree with you on that. To quote from Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
Madison wrote:Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable also because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a society can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true, that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
And later:
Madison wrote:They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
http://fas-history.rutgers.edu/~clemens/religion.html

I have to go home now so I'll leave you with that... I think it addresses more of your points than just the one I pointed to.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

reply #1

Post by lance » Apr 18th 2003, 8:55 am

Mglenn wrote:
Lance, first off I'm really enjoying these discussion so feel free to go for the juggler in your arguments. Keeps me on my toes. I don't like to believe in something with out an understanding of it. These discussions put my views to the test and force me to make sure I understand all the implications of them.

Now on to the good stuff:
lance wrote:
Try something just for a moment. Try not to think of this debate in terms of an assault on Christianity or some wild calculated attempt by weird Lefties to take your bible away. Try not to think of this as PC run amok. Rather try to think of this as a sensitivity issue. You don't have to agree with Hindus or Jews or Catholics or Muslims or Baptists to respect their space to be who they are. In respecting their space you are respecting your own space. Just try the impossible difficult task of seeing things from another persons point of view.

mglenn wrote:
The facts do not support that though. The attack is on christianity! When the gay and lesbians at Pitt had their cu*t Fest and people were offended and demanded that the School stop supporting such things, the left labled is as a restriction of their freedom of speach. But yet when a group promoting abstanence tried to stage a rally the school refused them say that it was religious in nature.

You can't have it both ways. Am I offended by what I've heard about cu*t Fest? Yes! Do I think they should be allowed to have their festival? Yes! Do I think the school should be supporting it? No! Should the abstanence group be allowed? Yes! Should the school support them? No!
Dude you are reporting anecdotal evidence of a single incident. One incident does not a national attack make. Also my point was not an amorphous “other” respect, or try to, people’s individual space but you are an individual. So in this regard I am not try to have anything both ways.
Can you provide more details about “cu*t Fest”? What “people” were offended by “what” specifically? What did the Fest involve? I agree with you that the school should not have restricted a group of students (they were students right?) from excercising their point of view on a particular topic

mglenn wrote:
The schools sole responsiblity is to teach them that 2+2=4! Not to support social agendas!
Agreed! I won’t push my social agenda on PUBLIC school students if you won’t push yours. There lies my point. NO ONE’S religious point of view should be placed upon PUBLIC school students.



lance wrote:
What about something more blatant: school prayer? Your fellow students are participating in prayer in class during school hours. Now what do you do? Do you just sort of mumble along just to fit in? Do you leave the room and therefore have to explain why you don't believe in their God? What do you say to your parents if they found out?


mglenn wrote:
So lets look at it in a slightly different context. Say you sitting in a dinner and I'm in the booth across from you. You and I get our food at the same time and I bow my head and say grace. Does this offend you? So what if it does? What effect does it have on the rest of your day or life?
Again dude, different context completely. I and you are both adults in a “dinner”, not a public school, if you want to pray that’s your progative and if the guy next you doesn’t that’s his deal

mglenn wrote:
You keep making the argument that some ones feelings will be hurt. Do you believe that doing away with all this that peoples feelings will no longer be hurt?
Absolutely not. However, in a public school setting if the question of religion is off the table the classroom will be a more inviting place for those of varied religious backgrounds.
Quote:
If you can understand the awkwardness and pressure people of "other" faiths may feel maybe you might understand

mglenn wrote:
I was made fun of and ashamed of for a whole lot of things in high school. The summer before 9th grade I received 3rd degree burns over 21% of my body. I had to where special graments, to cover the burns so that the would not scar, for well over a year. Now if you want to talk about humiliation try going through high school looking like a cripple. Religious beliefs don't have to be brought up. I didn't have a choice on whether or not my differences were known. How did I do it? Well first I could explain why I had to wear them. Second I demanded respect. If someone started to make fun and continued after a discription of what I went through I got in their face and didn't back down. I only ever got into two fights in high school and both were with guys that were total idiots.
Ouch. Sorry to hear about that.
lance wrote:
The constitution originally sanctioned slavery afterall.

mglenn wrote:
We could spin this off into another whole discussion. But it is blatantly apparent to everyone of us that the colored guy next to us is just as much human as anyone else and deserves the same treatment. Its not even in the same class here. No one is being forced to do anything here against their will.
Ahh but there in lies the rub. At one point it in our history it was apparent to the majority of white Americans that blacks couldn’t possible date white women, have mixed children, hold certain jobs, drink from the same water fountains.
Yes in some classrooms, noticeable in the South students are being allowed to read prayers in classrooms, over the PA despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, this stuff still goes on with our tax dollars.
lance wrote:
But just because it was in the constitution does that mean that today we as modern citizens need to endorse it.

Quote:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes... -Declaration of Independence

mglenn wrote:
The facts are childhood ends! You grow up and grow a thick skin against offences to your beliefs. The key is understanding your beliefs not restricting other people's so you don't have to think about yours. Besides the fact that your situations all require that the offended misunderstand the intended meaning, the change you request is still "light and transient", As it will not end end the humiliation we all experience during our childhood.
Roger that, childhood does end. The fact remains that the 42 million odd Public school studends are not 100% White Anglo Saxon Protestants, this is not a “light and transient” point. This is a huge demographic and societal shift. Some of us have accepted this point, some are beginning and to and some may never. That’s fine as long as one religious point of view is not advocated in a Public school setting.

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 22nd 2003, 12:14 pm

The issue is that most of these groups that you site are out to remove the bible because it is from the bible that many of there lifestyle choices conflict. Now do I belive that the bible should be used instead of a rational and logical reason to decide an issue? No. But I would be willing to wager that if I put forth those rational arguments against certain lifestyles, in a political running, I would be labeled a bible toting racist bigot. You and I have both seen this happen. Religion is protrated as evil and only the simple minded follow it...blah blah blah... Thats the problem I have. Thats the double standard I'm trying to get at. Its fine for them to be offended by prayer and such, but the religious have no right to point confront them about the things they do that are offensive.

The issue is that I still fail to see how there is a difference between someone praying at a resturant and a moment of silence in the morning at school where students may or may not pray... besides the fact that if the student wants to pray on his own no one can stop him. I just see the argument as pointless and its one side trying to remove a morality that is conflicting with their views.
NO ONE’S religious point of view should be placed upon PUBLIC school students.
I believe you have misunderstood me. I have never said that religion should be forced on anyone. But allowing for the option to practice ones religion is not forcing ones religion on anyone.
However, in a public school setting if the question of religion is off the table the classroom will be a more inviting place for those of varied religious backgrounds.
But religions are very deeply part of history of this world and to ignore them and remove them is not the answer. Open discussion and understanding is all that will solve the issue. Do you think we can have a discussion of the current issues without bringing up Islam?

More later gotta go to lunch...
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

stuff

Post by lance » Apr 22nd 2003, 4:20 pm

we agree to disagree.

Best,

Lance Man

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests