IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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]
New 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]
Expand Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 11:28:33 AM EDT
New 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]
New 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]
New 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]
New 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]
Expand Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 12:28:58 PM EDT
Expand Edited by bepatient Aug. 21, 2003, 12:29:45 PM EDT
New 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]
New Nazis killed people
yet, a Nazi group can use the school auditorium while a religious group cannot.
New 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
New 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
New 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
New 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]
New 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..."
New 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]
New That is ever the danger of the uninformed literal mind.
New 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.
New At Last:___The CRUX of the matter!
New You didn't know my chess coach. ;)
New 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
New 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..."
New 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
New 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..."
New 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
New 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..."
New 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]
New 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]
New Spoken like a Strict deConstructionist. . .
New 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
New 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
New 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
Expand Edited by deSitter Aug. 21, 2003, 12:11:02 PM EDT
New 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
New 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-------------------------------------------------------------------
New 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
New 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..
New 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.
     The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in schools - (orion) - (138)
         Pledge of Allegiance no longer required? - (rcareaga) - (3)
             Evidence - (orion) - (2)
                 Re: Evidence - (rcareaga) - (1)
                     Is this the news forum? - (orion)
         Separation of Church and State. - (pwhysall) - (128)
             It is not "separation"... - (bepatient) - (127)
                 I'll beg to differ. - (inthane-chan) - (24)
                     Beg all you like. - (bepatient) - (23)
                         That's not the point. - (inthane-chan) - (19)
                             No I got it. - (bepatient)
                             However, banning is exactly what is happening - (bluke) - (17)
                                 Re: However, banning is exactly what is happening - (JayMehaffey) - (16)
                                     well stated -NT - (deSitter)
                                     Disagree completely. - (Steve Lowe) - (12)
                                         Correct... - (bepatient) - (6)
                                             Threat to long-term survival. - (Ashton) - (5)
                                                 So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is? - (Steve Lowe) - (1)
                                                     Re: So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is? - (Ashton)
                                                 Dear me... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                     An anticipated Bowdlerization. Let me Econ- it for ya: - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                         Not necessary... - (bepatient)
                                         Doesn't have to be a specific religion - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                                             the constitution states ... - (bluke) - (3)
                                                 Well, up here - (jake123)
                                                 Thats the common translation now bluke... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     I agree with that wording - (Ashton)
                                     Not true - (bluke) - (1)
                                         I'm pretty much with you on that - (jake123)
                         Folie \ufffd deux.. folie \ufffd millon - Again!? - (Ashton) - (2)
                             Re: Folie \ufffd deux.. folie \ufffd millon - Again!? - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 In context of peer (and teacher) pressure and required - (Ashton)
                 Operative word - (Silverlock) - (98)
                     Agreed - (bepatient) - (97)
                         Nit picking - (Silverlock) - (95)
                             No I didn't miss it. - (bepatient) - (94)
                                 (Op iff p) - (FuManChu)
                                 I don't think I could disagree more - (Silverlock) - (92)
                                     Well we will disagree entirely here. - (bepatient) - (35)
                                         No it isn't. - (pwhysall) - (34)
                                             No that not what he said. - (bepatient) - (33)
                                                 Re: No that not what he said. - (pwhysall) - (25)
                                                     Its not... - (bepatient) - (24)
                                                         Re: Its not... - (pwhysall) - (22)
                                                             Now we see... - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                 Say it ain't so. - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                                                     Nazis killed people - (bluke) - (3)
                                                                         Got link? - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                                                             OT: while looking for link, found this: - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                                                 I don't quite grok his comment, - (Ashton)
                                                                     I want the tax dollars... - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                         I find it ironic... - (admin) - (2)
                                                                             Aye Cap'n...there's the rub. -NT - (bepatient)
                                                                             That is ever the danger of the uninformed literal mind. -NT - (Ashton)
                                                             You are being misdirected - (mhuber) - (11)
                                                                 At Last:___The CRUX of the matter! -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                 You didn't know my chess coach. ;) -NT - (inthane-chan)
                                                                 Exactly - (Silverlock) - (8)
                                                                     Oh no, you don't. - (admin) - (4)
                                                                         Try this word - (Silverlock) - (3)
                                                                             Try this one: - (admin) - (2)
                                                                                 Response noted - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                                                     Substantively different in kind - (admin)
                                                                     Oy shift this crap into politics - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                         That would be unconstitutional ;-) -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                             Spoken like a Strict deConstructionist. . . -NT - (Ashton)
                                                         It is not the function of government at all. - (Ashton)
                                                 Get it straight - (Silverlock) - (5)
                                                     You've entirely missed the point of church-state separation - (deSitter) - (4)
                                                         Re: You've entirely missed the point of church-state separat - (Ashton)
                                                         Quibble about liberalism - (jake123) - (2)
                                                             yes - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                 A great Stine cartoon has graced my reefer for ages - (Ashton)
                                                 Good News Club v Milford Central Schools (1998) - (Another Scott)
                                     Can "Anti-Creationism Alliance" meet in the school gym? -NT - (Arkadiy) - (40)
                                         Why not. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                             I know your answer - (Arkadiy)
                                         It already does - (Silverlock) - (6)
                                             So, it's OK to advance the cause of Atheism on Govt property - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                                                 Not my point at all - (Silverlock) - (3)
                                                     Sorry. - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                         Which question? - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                             Both, please? - (Arkadiy)
                                                 Umm we've had the 'A-theism' discussion several times - (Ashton)
                                         Here's where I stand. - (inthane-chan) - (30)
                                             Only the very best representatives - (Arkadiy)
                                             Britney Spears. - (pwhysall)
                                             Science is religion - (jake123)
                                             Where I disagree with you - (Silverlock) - (26)
                                                 Discrimination - (bluke) - (24)
                                                     you answer your own question - (Silverlock) - (23)
                                                         Perversion of the Constitution. - (admin) - (22)
                                                             See my response to Beep - (Silverlock) - (21)
                                                                 Which part of it? - (admin) - (20)
                                                                     I don't agree - (Silverlock) - (19)
                                                                         And its discriminatory. - (bepatient)
                                                                         Don't see how you can call that logical. - (admin) - (15)
                                                                             Argument from authority - (Silverlock) - (14)
                                                                                 Wrong. Lame attempt at misdirection. - (admin) - (13)
                                                                                     The law is in regards to faith. - (Silverlock) - (12)
                                                                                         Doesn't matter what the law is about. - (admin) - (11)
                                                                                             Ok - (Silverlock) - (10)
                                                                                                 Heh heh... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                                     Braap - (Silverlock)
                                                                                                 ... - (admin)
                                                                                                 I agree with your point, Don. - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                                                                                                     Er... *legal* groups. - (admin) - (3)
                                                                                                         But ritual animal sacrifice is perfectly legal. - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                                                                                             Cool... - (bepatient)
                                                                                                             Goes in same category as the rest of the legal groups then. -NT - (admin)
                                                                                                     And I know those... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                                         OK for just now: perhaps made illegal____just after WW-III? -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                         Um, no . Current case law says the opposite - (mhuber) - (1)
                                                                             Good, that's how it should be. -NT - (admin)
                                                 It seems to have come to 'about that', no? - (Ashton)
                                     Some serious disagreement - (jake123) - (14)
                                         No - (Silverlock) - (13)
                                             That is very nice - (bluke) - (12)
                                                 Its outright prejudicial.. - (bepatient) - (11)
                                                     You actually believe that? - (Silverlock) - (10)
                                                         Admin stated the views adequately above. -NT - (bepatient)
                                                         Amtrack is federally subsidized - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                                                             He wants his money back ;-) -NT - (bepatient)
                                                             Silly, but it does raise an interesting point.. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                                 Exactly. The motivation should be moot. - (admin)
                                                         Riding in the back of the bus - (jake123) - (4)
                                                             Where do you draw the line? - (Silverlock) - (3)
                                                                 Re: Where do you draw the line? - (admin) - (2)
                                                                     Was that a surrender or a .. Gah !?__:-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                         It was an attempt at illogic - (admin)
                         Declared unconstitutional? - (mhuber)
                 No free exercise is being touched here - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
                     Thats not at issue... - (bepatient) - (1)
                         Good. - (pwhysall)
         2 different issues - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
             Must disagree with the "remedy". Again. - (Ashton) - (2)
                 In theory yes - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                     Then others' childhood experience was quite different from - (Ashton)
         Even in Indiana - it is not required. - (mmoffitt)

Otherwise there are Deliverance theme parks.
259 ms