Well we will disagree entirely here.

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!