Agreed

Post #114,601 by bepatient 8/20/03 4:07:37 PM Reply	Agreed That the forced pledge may be bad...but declaring it uncostitutional is force in the opposite direction. I don't expect you to join me. But I expect that you thinking "under God" violates "government establishment of religion" in the historical context is picking serious nits at best. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,606 by Silverlock 8/20/03 4:15:50 PM Reply	Nit picking I would certainly hope that if I pick a nit, it's serious. Wouldn't want to scratch one of the little devils and hear it chuckle at me. Another nit. Did you entirely miss the secular humanism reference? I'll admit the argument may be weak, but it isn't based solely on the establishment clause. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,607 by bepatient 8/20/03 4:28:27 PM Reply	No I didn't miss it. But what is being done is >denial< of anyone's rights to practice religious freedom and its being done under the pretense of the 1st amendments guarantee. Neither one of our rights trumps anyone else's. However, what this type of legislation does is >deny< the right to practice any religion in "public" areas. Example discussed on the board from a news article follows...used to make a point. The Nazi's can use the school gymnasium for meetings. A Catholic youth group cannot. Violates church and state. Its empty otherwise. Unused. Does granting the youth group access to public facilites tacitly endorse the religion...does it amount to the state "establishing" a religion??? No. Denying them access to public space because they are a religious organization is also (in my opinion) a violation of Amendment One...because it is tantamount to denial of their right to free exersize of religion. It is a prejudicial stance >against< a religious group. The school pledge issue is tougher...because it is a closed environment...and one could argue that just allowing someone to abstain isn't enough...but it is just one area of an issue which is >much< larger and has many more instances of where this "separation" goes well beyond the 1st Amendment protections. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,616 by FuManChu 8/20/03 5:25:30 PM Reply	(Op iff p) Deontic logic, anyone? "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
Post #114,721 by Silverlock 8/21/03 10:40:25 AM Reply	I don't think I could disagree more But what is being done is >denial< of anyone's rights to practice religious freedom and its being done under the pretense of the 1st amendments guarantee. You can practice till you get it right, just not on the public's dime. You are perfectly free to worship in your home, in your church or (most important here) in your head. You can't impose it on others in govt funded buildings. Neither one of our rights trumps anyone else's. However, what this type of legislation does is >deny< the right to practice any religion in "public" areas. Not quite. You can practice it in your own head all you want. Organized religious acitivites in taxpayer funded areas is disallowed. You want to pray in your own head? Go ahead. You want to hold a prayer meeting? I'm not going to pay for it. Hold it in you own house. The Nazi's can use the school gymnasium for meetings. A Catholic youth group cannot. Violates church and state. Its empty otherwise. Unused. Does granting the youth group access to public facilites tacitly endorse the religion...does it amount to the state "establishing" a religion??? No. Ummm. 'No' is incorrect as an answer to this multipart question. First, the population density of the facility is immaterial to the question. A meaningless distraction. The Nazi reference is a nice red herring, but also immaterial. 'Tacit endorsement' is exactly the case when permission is given to a religious group to use taxpayer funded facilities to engage in religious activities in said facilities. Finally, the "establishment" part of your question. Nice phrasing. No, this is not the same as the Gov officially endorsing and requiring participation in a particular religion. You still can't use taxpayer funded institutions for religious purposes. Denying them access to public space because they are a religious organization is also (in my opinion) a violation of Amendment One...because it is tantamount to denial of their right to free exersize of religion. It is a prejudicial stance >against< a religious group. Your opinion is wrong. They can pray in their head all they want. They can pray in church/temple/whatever all they want. They can't use taxpayer funded space to hold a prayer meeting. The school pledge issue is tougher...because it is a closed environment...and one could argue that just allowing someone to abstain isn't enough...but it is just one area of an issue which is >much< larger and has many more instances of where this "separation" goes well beyond the 1st Amendment protections. It's not all that complex. Taxpayer funded institution; public, organized, sanctioned religious displays not allowed. How is this difficult to understand? Pull out the "under God" portion of the pledge (or replace it with "under the sun"), don't force anyone to give this loyalty oath, and no problems. You want to keep the "under GICC" part in, fine. Don't ask me or mine to use those words. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,722 by bepatient 8/21/03 10:51:43 AM Reply	Well we will disagree entirely here. Simple. I beleive that free access to all groups should be the issue when dealing with taxpayer funded buildings. Your stance is prejudicial against religion. It is so far to the opposite of what the 1st amendment intended as to be laughable to me. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,728 by pwhysall 8/21/03 11:17:23 AM Reply	No it isn't. If he was saying that churches are illegal, then yes. Saying that the government should not fund religious activities in any way is simply common sense. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #114,730 by bepatient 8/21/03 11:27:25 AM 8/21/03 11:28:33 AM Reply	No that not what he said. He is favoring denial of access to public areas in a prejudicial manner. That is not the same as saying government should not fund religion. It is a far cry from saying government should pass no law to >establish< religion. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 11:28:33 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,734 by pwhysall 8/21/03 11:31:13 AM Reply	Re: No that not what he said. Religion is a private activity, not a public one, therefore it should not be conducted in taxpayer-funded places. Dunno why this is so hard. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #114,736 by bepatient 8/21/03 11:49:23 AM Reply	Its not... ...but forbidding it to be practiced in public places while allowing other group activities is prejudicial. Don't know why >that< is so hard. It does not say "free exersize only in churches and in your house". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,739 by pwhysall 8/21/03 11:59:25 AM Reply	Re: Its not... Chess clubs, for example, don't have a history of torturing and imprisoning people just because they have a different interpretation of the en passant rule. Religion is a special case for very good reasons. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #114,748 by bepatient 8/21/03 12:22:47 PM 8/21/03 12:29:45 PM Reply	Now we see... ...that your attitude >is< prejudicial. Edit: Removed potentially offensive language and then corrected spelling in the edit If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 12:28:58 PM EDT Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 12:29:45 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,818 by pwhysall 8/21/03 4:53:30 PM Reply	Say it ain't so. Religion kills people. Chess doesn't. Where do you want YOUR tax dollars to go? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #114,857 by bluke 8/21/03 11:03:39 PM Reply	Nazis killed people yet, a Nazi group can use the school auditorium while a religious group cannot.
Post #114,863 by Silverlock 8/21/03 11:54:54 PM Reply	Got link? I don't know why, but this story about the Nazi's holding a recruitment meeting in a school auditorium seems a bit .... urban mythish. Was it a constant thing? An aberration that was rectified after the first occurrance? I'd like to know more. If this political group did hold these meetings, did the families in the neighborhood protest once they heard about it? Did they pick up the hitchhiker girl with the homecoming dress on? In front of the cemetary? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,901 by Arkadiy 8/22/03 10:13:39 AM Reply	OT: while looking for link, found this: [link\|http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-39f.html\|http://upalumni.org/...appendix-39f.html] -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,994 by Ashton 8/22/03 7:04:37 PM Reply	I don't quite grok his comment, About the whole Third Wave experiment, Jones admitted in an interview feelings of sickness and remorse. He proposes the question, "How far would you have gone?"[438] Stanley Milgram tried to answer that question. Was he surprised that Good-Nazis are so-easily made.. even here? And had he so little faith ;-) that - his Lesson would remain indelible - in all participants? Demonstration is ever so more educational than pious rationalizations needful of belief that, "We.. would never do That!" No? So why was he 'troubled'? (Perhaps he does not earnestly believe that the truth shall make you free -?- even though we realize the 'Arbeit' shtik was never supposed to mean anything, anyway..) Ashton
Post #114,887 by bepatient 8/22/03 8:15:30 AM Reply	I want the tax dollars... ...to go where the charter says... To all equally without regard. And in the case of religion...the Fed should have no stance at all...by charter..and as such the Constitution should NOT be held up as the doctrine that declares religion a "bad thing" in public life. As written...it should be >neutral. As currently interpreted it is not. I know your position. It is exactly that...a position. the US FED should not have one of those. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,896 by admin 8/22/03 9:36:28 AM Reply	I find it ironic... ... that the fact that religion was mentioned in the Constitution, in order to specifically protect it from discrimination, is being used to explicitly discriminate against it. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,898 by bepatient 8/22/03 9:44:10 AM Reply	Aye Cap'n...there's the rub. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,000 by Ashton 8/22/03 7:29:47 PM Reply	That is ever the danger of the uninformed literal mind.
Post #115,131 by mhuber 8/24/03 2:36:17 AM Reply	You are being misdirected The question at hand has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of religion. It has to do with children being forced, by a govornment employee in a position of authority, to make a political and religious statement. Chess clubs don't kill people, as far as I know, but that isn't the point - chess clubs don't demand that govornment authority figures make kids say "I beleive that chess rules America" every morning. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug, sometime you the driver you turn on the windshield washer you keep going.
Post #115,324 by Ashton 8/25/03 4:34:00 PM Reply	At Last:___The CRUX of the matter!
Post #115,340 by inthane-chan 8/25/03 7:08:47 PM Reply	You didn't know my chess coach. ;)
Post #115,371 by Silverlock 8/25/03 11:07:35 PM Reply	Exactly This is why I can't understand the "no difference" crew. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,373 by admin 8/25/03 11:11:26 PM Reply	Oh no, you don't. "No difference" has absolutely fucking NOTHING to do with being FORCED to do something. I am utterly, completely AGAINST forcing people to pledge a flag, acknowledge a god, or whatever. More messy thinking on your part. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,375 by Silverlock 8/25/03 11:13:35 PM Reply	Try this word Implicit. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,377 by admin 8/25/03 11:16:14 PM Reply	Try this one: Bullshit. There's a HUGE difference between a teacher standing up in front of a classroom forcing kids to say "under God", and a Christian group meeting in the cafeteria after hours. Give me a break. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,378 by Silverlock 8/25/03 11:27:30 PM Reply	Response noted Differences now abound. The authority implied in a school building doesn't really count. It's not strong enough compared to teacher leading prayers. Give me a break? Right back atcha. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,379 by admin 8/25/03 11:33:01 PM Reply	Substantively different in kind Not in magnitude. The teacher is acting in an official capacity. The religious group is meeting on their own time without official involvement. So yes, differences abound in this comparison, whether you care to see them or not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,482 by boxley 8/26/03 9:26:49 PM Reply	Oy shift this crap into politics where it belongs, what the state wants needs or gets is a secular issue. How many arms yer fav disincorporated being has is a religous issue. Of coarse I would never do such a thing :-) thanx, Bill America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #115,518 by bepatient 8/27/03 6:56:57 AM Reply	That would be unconstitutional ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,572 by Ashton 8/27/03 3:49:24 PM Reply	Spoken like a Strict deConstructionist. . .
Post #114,743 by Ashton 8/21/03 12:13:12 PM Reply	It is not the function of government at all. Neither to 'establish', promote OR condemn [anyone's idea of what might constitute a 'religion'] -- It simply is not a function of our Constitutionally-defined secular government. And (as Peter has said about as simply as I can imagine) - IT IS IN YOUR HEAD, and THAT is where it should remain: on/in/around/under -- any 'government-funded' LOCALE. IT defined: "One's own collected perceptions of metaphysical kind" - or absence of such perceptions - or Invented-beliefs - or downright Aberrant 'Beliefs', whether benign, malevolent or full-race Cockamamie. Period. This would remain relevant even were there no local temple, church, cathedral or store-front for conspicuously displaying one's Opinions on the Ineffable: no 'government' can supply "equal time" for every cockamamie mental aberration of individuals constituting the populace (that may be the merely 'practical' underpinning of a sane policy of disengagement which is dictated by the Constitution). HTH Ashton Check it out with JC: render unto C\ufffdsar.. or Cthulhu
Post #114,738 by Silverlock 8/21/03 11:58:15 AM Reply	Get it straight I don't want you using my tax money to support your religious delusion. Damn right it's prejudicial. I don't want my tax money supporting any religion. How is this different from the view you have supported before of "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose"? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,741 by deSitter 8/21/03 12:07:36 PM 8/21/03 12:11:02 PM Reply	You've entirely missed the point of church-state separation Ironically, this is more or less the same issue as gun control and the 2nd amendment - call it - thought control. The 1st Amendment merely states that the government is NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY with religious issues - that the sector of life involved with faith is NOT to be in any way trammled by offical sanction. So it's bloody well irrelevant if people pray in school - what is NOT irrelevant is an offical act by the govt that directly attempts to sponsor specific icons, customs, and doctrines of this or that particular sect - as the idiot in Alabama is doing with his Mosaic monument. This is why I cannot claim liberalism, in spite of agreeing with them on most issues - they are just as obsessed with thought and behavior control as the rightists. (Edit: according to your viewpoint, we should burn or melt all the money that states "In God We Trust", or at least all that bearing Masonic symbols (Novus Ordo Seclorum and all that). The presence of these symbols in no way represents an endorsement of a sect, because their presence does not in any way restrict the individual from believing what he pleases.) -drl Edited by deSitter Aug. 21, 2003, 12:11:02 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,751 by Ashton 8/21/03 12:27:52 PM Reply	Re: You've entirely missed the point of church-state separat (Edit: according to your viewpoint, we should burn or melt all the money that states "In God We Trust", or at least all that bearing Masonic symbols (Novus Ordo Seclorum and all that). The presence of these symbols in no way represents an endorsement of a sect, because their presence does not in any way restrict the individual from believing what he pleases.) Methinks this phrasing elides the propaganda aspect - of the constant presence of a metaphysical POV which is quite specific, odious to some, while perhaps tolerable to --> embraced by, that old Majority again. This is a Minority-rights issue as well as 'other'. It is this aspect (and I'm sure we could think of others) which is best addressed by ~ Ne le touchez pas! And yes: eventually the blatant "In God We Trust" must fade away. No need for a bonfire. As to Novus Ordo Seculorum: freed from Masonic happenstance, it is nicely unspecific about ineffable matters - "New World Order" has degenerated into a catchphrase for Any wet dream, right on up to the current Neoconman plan for Empire. 2 Kopeks
Post #114,836 by jake123 8/21/03 6:28:33 PM Reply	Quibble about liberalism what Americans call liberalism is so far from the actual philosophy as to defy comprehension as to how it came to be called that in the US. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #114,838 by deSitter 8/21/03 7:13:48 PM Reply	yes and it's true here as well. Liberalism used to mean what we call "libertarian", but now means - Communism of opinion and desire. DESIRE. Americans are run by desires. Now they WANT what the dreaded Enemy wanted. -drl
Post #114,868 by Ashton 8/22/03 1:47:11 AM Reply	A great Stine cartoon has graced my reefer for ages It's now yellowed & water stained. Shows a sketch of a guy with his head bent down flat over a shoulder.. by a huge stack of 'blocks' of various sizes; Sez (flowed around the character) "So often we fail to see that the unrelenting, sometimes even horrific, pressures we live under are actually pressures that we created by our own DESIRES in the first place." Thou sayest..
Post #114,740 by Another Scott 8/21/03 11:59:39 AM Reply	Good News Club v Milford Central Schools (1998) [link\|http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_GoodNewsMilford.htm\|This] court case seems applicable here. From atheism.about.com: Background Information In August of 1992, the Milford Central School District adopted a policy allowing district residents to use school facilities for "holding social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be open to the general public," and otherwise conformed to state laws. The policy expressly prohibited the use of school facilities for religious purposes and required that applicants certify that their proposed use complies with the policy: School premises shall not be used by any individual or organization for religious purposes. Those individuals and/or organizations wishing to use school facilities and/or grounds under this policy shall indicate on a Certificate Regarding Use of School Premises form provided by the District that any intended use of school premises is in accordance with this policy. The Good News Club is a community-based Christian youth organization open to children between the ages of six and twelve. The purported purpose of the Club is to instruct children in moral values from a Christian perspective. It is affiliated with an organization known as Child Evangelism Fellowship, which is dedicated to converting even the youngest children to their brand of conservative Chrsitianity. The local Good News chapter in Milford requested use of school facilities for meetings, but was denied. After they appealed and requested a review, Superintendent McGruder and counsel determined that... ...the kinds of activities proposed to be engaged in by the Good News Club are not a discussion of secular subjects such as child rearing, development of character and development of morals from a religious perspective, but were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself. Court Decision The Second District Court upheld the school's refusal to allow the club to meet. The Good News Club's sole argument was that the First Amendment dictates that the Club cannot constitutionally be excluded from use of the Milford Central School facilities. The Court, however, found in both law and precedence that restrictions on speech in a limited public forum will withstand First Amendment challenge if they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. According to the Club, it was unreasonable for the school to argue that anyone might be confused to think that their presence and mission were endorsed by the school itself, but the Court rejected this argument, stating: In Bronx Household of Faith, we stated that "it is a proper state function to decide the extent to which church and school should be separated in the context of the use of school premises." ...The activities of the Club clearly and intentionally communicate Christian beliefs by teaching and by prayer, and we think it eminently reasonable that the Milford school would not want to communicate to students of other faiths that they were less welcome than students who adhere to the Club's teachings. This is especially so in view of the fact that those who attend the school are young and impressionable. [...] The Supreme Court reversed the above decision, finding that by allowing other groups to meet at the same time, the school created a limited public forum. Because of this, the school is not permitted to exclude certain groups based upon their content or viewpoints: When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment. Significance The Supreme Court's decision in this case ensured that when a school opens it doors to student and community groups, those door must remain open even when those groups are religious in nature and that the government will not discriminate against religion. However, the Court provided no guidance to help school administrators in ensuring that students do not feel pressured to join religious groups and that students do not get the impression that religious groups are somehow endorsed by the state. The school's original decision to ask such a group to meet later seems, in light of that genuine interest, a reasonable precaution. Cheers, Scott.
Post #114,732 by Arkadiy 8/21/03 11:28:29 AM Reply	Can "Anti-Creationism Alliance" meet in the school gym? -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,733 by bepatient 8/21/03 11:28:56 AM Reply	Why not. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,745 by Arkadiy 8/21/03 12:16:18 PM Reply	I know your answer I wondered about your opponents'. Did I answer the wrong post? -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,746 by Silverlock 8/21/03 12:20:15 PM Reply	It already does It's called the Science Club. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,776 by Arkadiy 8/21/03 1:35:14 PM Reply	So, it's OK to advance the cause of Atheism on Govt property But not that of Religion. I think this is exactly the stuff First Amendment was written to protect agains. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,780 by Silverlock 8/21/03 1:49:56 PM Reply	Not my point at all I made a smart ass remark. You jumped on it too quickly. Even if it was made in all seriousness, how does science club equate with promoting atheism? Sheesh. Sarcasm is dead. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,783 by Arkadiy 8/21/03 2:03:29 PM Reply	Sorry. So, is the answer "No"? or "Yes". And, if you want a better name for the club, how about "La Bible Amusante Society"? -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,799 by Silverlock 8/21/03 3:02:19 PM Reply	Which question? The one about the mythical anti-creationism group or the one about those atheists seeking converts through preaching? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,900 by Arkadiy 8/22/03 10:05:34 AM Reply	Both, please? Since you did such a great job of figuring out the questions, you may as well answer them :) -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,871 by Ashton 8/22/03 1:55:21 AM Reply	Umm we've had the 'A-theism' discussion several times Those who believe this word means "I Know There's Nothing There!" ie. those who purport a Knowledge of [THE UNKNOWN] and by definition [UNKNOWABLE]: what is such a Belief called? It's a Religion. (It's tough using language correctly in a culture which disrespects language itself - as much as it is xenophobic of others and their oddities. Surely this has something to do with the 'Atheism' presumptions, just as with the Murican /Or/ Commie Pinko! popular but Pointless shouting matches) A.
Post #114,759 by inthane-chan 8/21/03 12:42:44 PM Reply	Here's where I stand. I don't mind if religious groups meet, ON THEIR OWN TIME, on public property. If students want to pray before class, that's fine. If a teacher wants to pray before class, that's fine. If, during the course of a class, the teacher, who is now acting in an official capacity as a representative of the state, promotes a specific religion. I also don't see the science club as the "anti-creationism club" - the scientific method is about defining the universe through the proof of one's own perceptions, whereas religion is about faith - accepting the unknowable without proof. Yes, some people have turned science into a religion, but that's their problem, not mine. Prove to me that the universe existed before you read this line. That's the difference between science and religion. In that final hour, when each breath is a struggle to take, and you are looking back over your life's accomplishments, which memories would you treasure? The empires you built, or the joy you spread to others? Therin lies the true measure of a man.
Post #114,777 by Arkadiy 8/21/03 1:37:48 PM Reply	Only the very best representatives of Science understand the difference you've just highlighted. Most Atheists are just as militant as Deists, if not worse. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,820 by pwhysall 8/21/03 4:58:10 PM Reply	Britney Spears. Proof that there is no god. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #114,837 by jake123 8/21/03 6:35:39 PM Reply	Science is religion In the final analysis, science is not more provable as knowledge than religion is; it is the nature of scientific knowledge to be contingent. Science is not about knowledge or provable facts; science is about a process. Incidentally enough, so is religion. However, religion and science are in completely different spheres of inquiry; a good scientist with an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of their avocation will understand that science cannot comment on statements of faith, while a good theologian with a good understanding of the epistemology of their faith will understand that attempts by a church (xtian, muslim, or other) to legislate the nature of nature are doomed from the start. Can't remember if it was Popper or some other dude that first pointed that out... Foucault, maybe (my epistemology classes were ten years ago now). Either way, the argument is compelling and should be read by anyone that wants to discuss science and scientific discovery in any meaningful way. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #114,840 by Silverlock 8/21/03 9:52:23 PM Reply	Where I disagree with you I don't mind if religious groups meet, ON THEIR OWN TIME, on public property. Good explanatory sentance. I'll rephrase it and you'll see where we disagree. I don't mind if religious groups meet, ON THEIR OWN DIME, on private property. If it's not clear yet to everyone, my position is this-- worship how you will. Just don't use my tax money to support it. I pay for the schools, the courthouses, the senate buildings, etc. You don't get to use them for worship of anything. God, Jehova, Papa Doc, Earth spirit or The Great A'Tuan. If you want to twist my desire not to pay for your worship into some form of discrimination, you have a successfull future in TV evangelism waiting for you. Well, maybe not. But I'm sure they'll welcome any donation you want to make to further the cause of being able to prey in the buildings I pay for. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,875 by bluke 8/22/03 3:35:10 AM Reply	Discrimination Given your position is there a problem with the following. What if I said I don't want my tax money going to any black organizations (for example the NAACP can't use the school auditorium for a meeting), they want to organize do it on their own dime, do you support that? How is it any different from a religious group?
Post #114,917 by Silverlock 8/22/03 11:54:00 AM Reply	you answer your own question How is it any different from a religious group? Errmmm...., possibly because it's not religious? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,922 by admin 8/22/03 12:12:36 PM Reply	Perversion of the Constitution. No laws respecting the establishment of religion. By preventing a group from gathering because it is a religious group, and not a soccer group, or Pokemon group, or whatever, you are creating a law discriminating against religion in all forms. Religion should be treated no differently than any other pasttime or hobby, especially because of the explicit reference to that fact in the Constitution. This explicit mention, however, is unfortunately being perverted to the exact opposite meaning by the Jeffersonian interpretation. Incidentally, this is a representative democracy. Once you pay your taxes, it's out of your hands how it gets spent as long as the usage is legal, regardless of whether you personally agree with that use or not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,924 by Silverlock 8/22/03 12:35:21 PM Reply	See my response to Beep [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114923\|here]. Pretty much covers this. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,926 by admin 8/22/03 12:47:25 PM Reply	Which part of it? Because it's not the same point. 1) "My worship"? Examine your assumptions here. I'm as atheistic as they come. And that post doesn't answer my points. 2) "The only way the gov can truly be neutral with respect to religion is to scrupulously avoid supporting any of the various flavors." Wrong. "not supporting" is not the same as explicitly supporting (or discriminating). By preventing church groups from gathering at a school, you are engaging in explicit discrimination, not explicit support. Only if a single group is allowed permission is there any kind of explicit or implicit support. By explicitly prohibiting religion, in direct contradiction to the Constitution, you are just as guilty of engaging in discriminatory, non-neutral behavior. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,927 by Silverlock 8/22/03 12:58:11 PM Reply	I don't agree You think the current interpretation is a perversion. I think it's a logical outgrowth. You don't agree with current case law in this matter, I do. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,930 by bepatient 8/22/03 1:04:15 PM Reply	And its discriminatory. Just as much so as separate toilets. ...without regard to race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age, disability, marital or veteran status, sexual orientation... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,935 by admin 8/22/03 1:28:16 PM Reply	Don't see how you can call that logical. For the reasons I stated. Whether that is the current interpretation or not, I don't care. Argument from authority. Make your own argument, not someone else's. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,158 by Silverlock 8/24/03 9:18:29 AM Reply	Argument from authority A complaint about being illogical in an argument about religion. Good one, Scott. And the complaint is about using the argument from authority. About religion. Better one. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,160 by admin 8/24/03 9:37:07 AM 8/24/03 9:37:20 AM Reply	Wrong. Lame attempt at misdirection. This is an argument about politics. We're not arguing faith. We're arguing law. Try again. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Aug. 24, 2003, 09:37:20 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #115,279 by Silverlock 8/25/03 10:26:49 AM Reply	The law is in regards to faith. The point is proposed that there is "no difference" in laws regarding hobbyists use of public facilities and laws regarding religious groups use of those facilities. I am saying you can't divorce the religious aspect from the discussion. There is a difference. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,284 by admin 8/25/03 10:48:16 AM Reply	Doesn't matter what the law is about. We're discussing law primarily about religion secondarily. Your previous objection is therefore ridiculous. Religion is a (strange) hobby, as far as I am concerned. There is no difference. And as pointed out elsewhere, apparently current case law supports my view on this manner, since you seem to be impressed with authority. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,297 by Silverlock 8/25/03 11:58:23 AM Reply	Ok We are done. The impasse is obvious. The "no difference" position is what it all boils down to and I don't see any way of convincing you of the error of your conviction. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,298 by bepatient 8/25/03 12:07:51 PM Reply	Heh heh... ...because his isn't in error. Nudge ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,300 by Silverlock 8/25/03 12:11:57 PM Reply	Braap I make rude mouth noises in your general direction. Nudge ;-) backatcha ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,299 by admin 8/25/03 12:11:49 PM Reply	... You're treating religious groups differently. This is, by all definitions applicable, discrimination. The Constitution specifically disallows this kind of discrimination. I'm at a loss as to how you can't see that. Impasse indeed. You've managed to present nothing that explains why your position isn't illogical, yet you're convinced that my "conviction" is in error. None so blind... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,303 by a6l6e6x 8/25/03 12:47:07 PM Reply	I agree with your point, Don. Not all "clubs" and "hobbies" are equivalent. Plug in "man boy love" or "child porn photo exchange" or "animal sacrifice" or "masochist sadist interaction" group. Yeah, they deserve to meet in public facilities as well. Maybe NOT! One needs to have a blind spot not to see the evil baggage that comes with religions. Alex "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
Post #115,309 by admin 8/25/03 1:16:21 PM Reply	Er... legal groups. Which is a perfectly valid distinction to make. I'm certainly not blind to the danger of religion. However, making the distinction on religion is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,313 by a6l6e6x 8/25/03 2:34:16 PM Reply	But ritual animal sacrifice is perfectly legal. [link\|http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri1.htm\|SUPREME COURT RULING ON SANTERIA ANIMAL SACRIFICES]. And so are consensual [link\|http://www.geocities.com/rhsmcjrotc/parrisisland.html\|power mind games]. Alex "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
Post #115,314 by bepatient 8/25/03 2:38:18 PM Reply	Cool... ...school barbecue! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,315 by admin 8/25/03 2:47:07 PM Reply	Goes in same category as the rest of the legal groups then. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,310 by bepatient 8/25/03 1:25:47 PM Reply	And I know those... One needs to have a blind spot not to see the evil baggage that comes with religions. ...that hold the same opinion about certain minority groups. Understand his point or not...its not illegal to be religious (unlike the other examples)...and as such that makes the view bigoted and prejudicial. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,318 by Ashton 8/25/03 4:00:14 PM Reply	OK for just now: perhaps made illegal____just after WW-III?
Post #115,132 by mhuber 8/24/03 2:44:21 AM Reply	Um, no . Current case law says the opposite If a school allows the use of facilities by outside groups, it has to allow them whether religious or not. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug, sometime you the driver you turn on the windshield washer you keep going.
Post #115,161 by admin 8/24/03 9:37:58 AM Reply	Good, that's how it should be. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,876 by Ashton 8/22/03 3:44:23 AM Reply	It seems to have come to 'about that', no? Were we a more curious bunch, our culture less anti-intellectual and very much less violence prone (often over really screwed-up premises, do many die) - Why then.. Who Wouldn't-be! Interested in (exploring possible) 'origins'? But we have it backwards: murderous rages over one ignorant piece of (wishful? fearful? both??) cant VS an equally-ignorant but Opposed guess. {sigh} what to do with duelling naifs? You can't make the topic safe for dummies; all you can do is reduce the dumbth level (my guess). But that level isn't improving.. is it. So yep: put it in Econ terms - the fav (actual) Universal God of Murica! Not one cent for ~~Tribute!~~ fanciful musings in My Government Offices thankyouverymuch. Sign me up too, Ashton (who has seen only quite rare occasions wherein an actual exchange of valuable insights became possible. But those are enough to demonstrate what Might Be, post-adolescence and all. That'll be a while.)
Post #114,835 by jake123 8/21/03 6:25:54 PM Reply	Some serious disagreement When talking about Catholics using a school gym, you're not talking about "establishment of a religion" here. You're talking about use of a public facility by a community group. The problem is not use of public facilities by Catholics, it's exclusive access to public facilities by a particular religion. That can be hard to deal with in a deterministic manner, because of course resources aren't infinite so it's not necessarily true that everyone can have a turn. However, if the Catholics are getting it every night while the Muslims whistle dixie, then there's a problem. In general this is a problem that requires sober judgement to resolve. Since most people in both politics and justice wish to avoid any possibility of the appearance of responsibility for pissing someone off, this doesn't happen. Instead, you see people attempting to "rationalise" the means of decision making, so as to avoid having to make any kind of decision at all... and the only equitable way to rationalise this kind of decision is to ban all of them. Personally, I think this is a mistake that destroys the value of the commons to the community in the long run. Instead, the best possible solution to how to dispose of the use of the gym is that the folks that run it take applications for time, schedule them, yak with the people to find decent compromises when there are conflicts, and let people in to use the gym, whether the purpose be religious or simply gymnastic. If there is a problem with a bigot running the joint that simply refuses to allow say the Korean church into the place no matter what, that becomes a matter for politicians, and ultimately judges. In situations like that, if it ends up in a lawsuit appealing to minority rights protections, you've got a sure sign of a politician not doing their job properly, and a politician that should get turfed out at the next election. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #114,842 by Silverlock 8/21/03 10:09:41 PM Reply	No When talking about Catholics using a school gym, you're not talking about "establishment of a religion" here. You're talking about use of a public facility by a community group. You're talking about using my tax dollars to support this religious group's activities. They may also be a community group. But they are a religious group first and foremost. I won't have it. You want to pay for it- fine. Let 'em meet in your back yard. But you can't use my money. I won't let you allow that camel's nose into the tent. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,865 by bluke 8/22/03 12:26:33 AM Reply	That is very nice but is not a Constitutional issue. You will find various people making the same statement about any number of groups or subjects, don't use my money to support "fill in the blank" (homosexuals, blacks, welfare mothers, abortion, nuclear weapons, etc.) why is religion any different then any of the above?
Post #114,888 by bepatient 8/22/03 8:18:10 AM Reply	Its outright prejudicial.. ....and absolutley no different that not allowing >black people< to ride on my public bus. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,923 by Silverlock 8/22/03 12:29:33 PM Reply	You actually believe that? I don't want you using my tax money to support your worship and that is the same as racial discrimination to you. Astounding. Tell me when I ever made christians ride in the back of the bus. Neutral. Remember that word? The only way the gov can truly be neutral with respect to religion is to scrupulously avoid supporting any of the various flavors. I don't think we can continue. Fundamental difference in definitions. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,928 by bepatient 8/22/03 12:58:19 PM Reply	Admin stated the views adequately above. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,929 by Arkadiy 8/22/03 12:59:02 PM 8/22/03 12:59:28 PM Reply	Amtrack is federally subsidized I ride an Amtrack train to attend a religious convention. Did I violate your rights? -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum Edited by Arkadiy Aug. 22, 2003, 12:59:28 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,931 by bepatient 8/22/03 1:04:57 PM Reply	He wants his money back ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,934 by hnick 8/22/03 1:21:59 PM Reply	Silly, but it does raise an interesting point.. Using Amtrack is no different than using pubicly funded roads to go to church or convention. However... Suppose that a church or religious group of some size held a clearly non-secular event. They are expecting thousands. Should the city officials schedule extra busses or otherwise increase the availibility of transportation? It is their responsibility to provide public transportation. Is it reasonable to supprort, say a Star Trek convention, and not support say, a Billy Graham fest? I would think that it would be their responsibility to provide the transportation and ignore the motivation of the citizens. Keeping tabs of the motives of the people is not their responisbility. Following that line of reasoning then, I would think that it would be appropriate for public buildings to be used by any group as long as the criteria for use was the same for any and all groups who are interested. My basic faith in human nature leads me to believe that the implementation of this would be corrupted in no time, but the concept should be good.
Post #114,936 by admin 8/22/03 1:30:36 PM Reply	Exactly. The motivation should be moot. Those people pay taxes too. They should be allowed the use of public facilities to meet, just as they can ride the train, or the bus, or whatever. The fact that the Constitution's authors thought that religious discrimination was an important enough problem to be addressed explicitly should not be turned around into an excuse for discrimination against all religions. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,941 by jake123 8/22/03 2:33:32 PM 8/22/03 2:35:20 PM Reply	Riding in the back of the bus Right now, a lot of Muslims are "riding in the back of the bus" in a lot of ways in NA right now... like arbitrary detention without charge and other fun things like that. Silverlock, Atheism is just as much a statement of faith as Catholicism. You cannot expect your position to get more support from the state than those of Catholics etc, and yet you think it's ok for religious people's taxes to support non-religious events and groups, while it's not ok for non-religious people's taxes to support religious activities and groups. The idea is absurd on the face of it. The statement in the Constitution seems very clear to me; no state religion, and no discrimination based on religion. This is NOT the same as discriminating against religion. For the record, I usually keep my personal ruminations on the being and nature of God to myself. In general, I'm somewhere a mix between a pantheist/animist with touches of a personal deity. I definitely don't fall under the rubric of traditional christian doctrine; in the bad old days, they probably would have burned me at the stake. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by jake123 Aug. 22, 2003, 02:35:20 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,970 by Silverlock 8/22/03 4:28:32 PM Reply	Where do you draw the line? Say I finally relent and agree that it is harmless to hold prayer meetings in school. What exactly is not permissible? Proseltyzing? Preaching? Baptism? Conversion? Animal sacrifice? Why does this argument always come up in response to yet another christian incursion into publicly funded areas? I don't seem to remember any cases of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or other beliefs getting shot down in court for the same things. I guess I don't see it. How is not allowing the trappings of religion to be displayed in publicly funded buildings harming the followers of those religions? You and a few others equate this with discrimination. I think of it as a sensible precaution. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,976 by admin 8/22/03 5:10:33 PM Reply	Re: Where do you draw the line? Say I finally relent and agree that it is harmless to hold Pokemon tournaments in school. What exactly is not permissible? Run-offs? Advertising? Victory laps? Laughing? Card trading? Why does this argument always come up in response to yet another corporate incursion into publicly funded areas? I don't seem to remember any cases of Harry Potter, Magic The Gathering, Scooby Doo or other trading card clubs getting shot down in court for the same things. I guess I don't see it. How is not allowing the logos of a corporation to be displayed in publicly funded buildings harming the players of those card games? You and a few others equate this with discrimination. I think of it as a sensible precaution. -- And before you get hung-up on the details of the satire: Ban all groups from using schools, or ban none of them. Anything else is discrimination. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,005 by Ashton 8/22/03 7:48:04 PM Reply	Was that a surrender or a .. Gah !?__:-\ufffd
Post #115,021 by admin 8/22/03 9:55:43 PM Reply	It was an attempt at illogic ... to show the illogic of his position. So I guess it was a "Gah". ;-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,129 by mhuber 8/24/03 2:23:07 AM Reply	Declared unconstitutional? The thing that was found unconstitutional was inducing children to say "under God" in the context of a govornment institution. You can say it all you want. You can make your kids say it. You can say it in church. You can paint it in big letters on your house. The "under God" stuff isn't unconstitutional. It's the govornment employed authority figure making kids say it that is. If words mean anything, if "God" means anything beyond general niceness, "one Nation under God" is a very powerful political statement. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug, sometime you the driver you turn on the windshield washer you keep going.

Welcome to IWETHEY!